Elections in the United States are inherently spatial, meaning they are tied to specific geographical components. Voters are assigned ballot styles and polling locations based on their place of residence. Apportioned districts are defined spatially, using data from the US Census Bureau. However, many voter registration systems do not geographically represent such phenomena. For example, voter registration systems often use address "lists" instead of points on a map. This reliance on indirect methods makes it much more difficult to assess the accuracy of the district assignments when compared to the original data sources.

This issue is not merely theoretical; it has tangible consequences for actual voters, as evidenced by this recent example from Ward County, North Dakota, and multiple instances across the United States where voters received incorrect ballots due to district mismatches.

So, how can we help prevent this confusion? One way is to conduct a spatial audit of your jurisdiction’s voter registration database.

What is a spatial audit?

A spatial audit operates by assigning geographic coordinates, or "points," to each voter’s address and then sticking a "pin" through that point, piercing the various geopolitical layers relevant to voting— precincts for polling location assignments and apportioned and other districts for ballot assignments. This process is known as "point-in-polygon" analysis.

What’s the point?

Most of us are familiar with tools like Google Maps, where you input a starting address and a destination, and the system guides you down your route. Converting an address into a spatial representation is known as geocoding. However, not all geocodes are created equal, and most election officials lack the substantial budgets required to obtain precise GPS coordinates for every location. Thankfully, address point layers are widely available and affordable for most budgets.

The quality of a geocode for voting purposes is influenced by the priorities of the entity collecting the data. For example, Next Generation 911 systems are concerned with the locations of driveways and points of egress for emergencies. For election officials, the priority is pinpointing your domicile and its specific rooms, as this determines your voting district and eligibility.

Geocodes typically originate from one of two sources: governmental agencies or commercial providers. Governmental agencies that maintain robust address point layers are generally an excellent, if not the best, geocode source. These agencies may supply the address points directly or offer an enterprise geocoder to convert the tabular addresses into precise points. On the other hand, commercial geocodes can be more complete regarding coverage, as they often combine multiple data sources. Regardless of the provider, it is crucial to consider the precision and accuracy of the geocodes being used.

Timing

Like all election audits, a jurisdiction should perform spatial audits regularly. They should be conducted before major elections to increase confidence that each voter will receive the correct ballot with all the contests in which they are entitled to vote. Enough time should be given to implement corrections in case discrepancies are found to ensure compliance with all applicable election laws.

Outputs of a Spatial Audit

The outputs of a spatial audit can be tailored to the locality's needs. At the most basic level, a spatial audit report lists potential discrepancies, highlighting the differences between the address and district assignments in the Voter Registration Database (VRDB) and those identified via spatial analysis.

Jurisdictions may conduct their analysis before adjusting voters' precinct and district assignments. Election officials should maintain a detailed record of all changes made during the audit, including the rationale for each adjustment.

Getting Started

To start a spatial audit, you need to know how address data is stored. Does your system use bullet point addresses or address ranges? Do you want to geocode only the addresses of existing voters or cast your net wider to include other addresses, such as commercial and industrial addresses (many of which are actively being turned into housing)?

Having a relationship with your State Geographic Information Officer (GIO) is not a strict requirement, but it may be beneficial. Election offices may also want to consider using a third party to conduct the audit, as this is an auditing best practice and can help ensure impartiality and accuracy in the process. Moreover, the interactions and evaluations required during a spatial audit can help lay the foundation for transitioning to a fully geo-enabled election system.

Conclusion

For offices that are already geo-enabled, a spatial audit offers a second opinion from a third party. For those lacking spatial capabilities, it is light in a dark room, providing visibility into district assignments. Are you ready to get started with a spatial audit? Contact us here at The Turnout, and we’ll gladly assist.