Mood of the nation: How long is too long to wait in line to vote? And what types of assistance should be allowed?

by ALYSON CLARY | Updated June 29, 2021

On March 25, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed the Election Integrity Act of 2021 into law. The law’s critics have derided it as a vehicle for voter suppression, while its proponents argue it is a necessary step to ensure that the mechanisms by which we select our political leaders are fair and beyond reproach.

It is one of many pieces of legislation that have been introduced this spring in state houses throughout the country and in Congress. And this voting legislation has become an arena for a starkly partisan battle.  At least, that is how the media and politicians are currently depicting it. But what do Americans really think?

The nonpartisan McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State regularly conducts the nationally representative Mood of the Nation poll to gauge how Americans are feeling about various aspects of American politics and society. The April 2021 poll included several questions on voting, including some that are specifically related to Georgia’s new laws on voting. The APM Research Lab has partnered with the McCourtney institute to analyze the poll response data and present the results to the public.

Providing assistance to those waiting to vote: When is it acceptable?

The most controversial provision of Georgia’s new voting law, and the one that arguably has received the most attention in the media, is the provision criminalizing the act of distributing food or water from outside groups to voters waiting in line to cast their ballot.

It turns out, the vast majority of Americans believe some forms of assistance to would-be voters facing long wait times should be allowed: 84% would allow the distribution of water and 71% would allow food distribution. The only form of assistance that received greater approval was holding a place in line for older and disabled voters (86%), but fewer Americans approved of providing non-partisan voter guides (62%).

High levels of support for assisting voters by providing water and food is remarkably consistent across the variety of demographic groups that we examined (see our full report for a complete demographic breakdown). Some variation does exist, however, along party lines.

While a strong majority of Democrats, Independents and Republicans favor providing water to voters facing long wait times, the support is nearly unanimous among Democrats. Ninety-seven percent of Democrats support the distribution of water, compared to 76% of Independents and 72% of Republicans.

Even greater partisan variation exists when it comes to allowing distribution of food. Ninety-one percent of Democrats approve of food distribution, compared to 68% of Independents and 47% of Republicans.

Why Americans approve or disapprove of distributing food and water to those waiting in line to vote.

To better understand why respondents approved or disapproved of the distribution of food and water to voters facing long wait times, participants were asked to explain their responses in their own words. In looking at the answers, several common themes emerge.

Across Democrats, Republicans and Independents, the most common type of answer identified excessive wait times as justification for supplying water and food to those waiting in line to vote.

Some respondents emphasized that long wait times were a form of voter suppression. “Long lines are intentional and meant to discourage voting,” argued an 80-year-old Independent from California, for example. Similarly, a 41-year-old Democrat from Minnesota wrote, “Having to wait for hours to vote is a serious flaw (and likely brought forth due to closing too many polling places), and it’s not the voter’s fault.” In both instances, distributing food and water is a suggested means of counteracting impediments to voting.

Many people also raised concern over negative health impacts from long wait times, particularly for those with pre-existing medical conditions and the elderly. Respondents across all political parties were roughly equivalent in the frequency of this type of answer. However, among Republicans, concerns over health impacts were among the most common reasons given for supporting the distribution of food and water, whereas health concerns were one of many reasons given by Independents and Democrats.

Independents and Democrats were more likely than Republicans to provide answers indicating that, (a) supplying food and water is a humane and decent thing to do, or (b) there is no reason not to supply food and water. Republicans also provided answers along these lines, although not quite as commonly as answers pertaining to health impacts.

The primary reason why someone thought distributing water and food should not be allowed was that it could be construed as influencing someone’s vote or open the door to electioneering.

In fact, a smaller portion of those who responded affirmatively to allowing water and food to be distributed specified that it should be done in a strictly non-partisan fashion. Republicans were about twice as likely as Democrats to add such a caveat, with Independents falling somewhere in between the two parties. Likewise, a handful of those who were against distributing water and food clarified in their open-ended response that it could be allowed only if performed by a non-partisan poll worker.

Some respondents opposed to the distribution of food or water answered that it was the responsibility of the voter to bring it if they were concerned about the possibility of a long wait time. Still, others raised concerns over costs to the taxpayer, hygiene and safety, and littering.

The April Mood of the Nation poll asked respondents to tell us their reasonings behind why they approve or disapprove of allowing water and food to be distributed to voters waiting in line. Read a sample of the full responses at the end of the summary report.

Waiting in line to vote: How long is too long?

As seen above, the most common rationale given for allowing the distribution of water and food to voters is that long wait lines necessitate assistance. But, how long is too long?

A majority of Americans believe that no voter should have to wait longer than 60 minutes to cast their ballot. Nearly half indicate that wait times exceeding 30 minutes are unacceptable, a view shared by the nonpartisan Presidential Commission on Election Administration in their 2014 report.

Sixty percent of Democrats indicate that it is only acceptable to allow voters to wait up to 30 minutes to cast their ballots, compared with only 36% of both Independents and Republicans. Perhaps even more revealingly, three times as many Independents and Republicans as Democrats say that “any wait time, even more than three hours, is acceptable.”

Personal response to longer wait times, however, is much less partisan than the more theoretical question of what allowable wait times should be. A strong showing of both Republicans and Democrats—roughly 3 in 4 of both parties—affirmed that they would likely still vote in the 2022 midterm election if they encountered wait times exceeding 90 minutes at their polling location.

The results of this survey do suggest, however, that long wait times do have a differential impact on some groups of voters. Higher percentages of women, younger adults, Black and Latino Americans, and those with less education and income indicated they would be less likely to stay and vote in the midterm when facing wait times of 90 minutes or more.

PARTNER FOR THIS SURVEY

The McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State promotes scholarship and practical innovations that defend and advance democracy in the United States and abroad. Through teaching, research, and public outreach, the Institute leverages the resources of Penn State and partners around the world to foster a model of deliberation, policymaking, and responsiveness that is passionate, informed, and civil.

The Institute’s Mood of the Nation poll offers a unique approach to public opinion polling. It allows Americans to speak in their own words through open-ended questions that focus on emotions like anger and hope, as well as commitment to constitutional principles.

Thoughts? Questions?

We want to hear from you! Leave us a message below.

…or email us at info@apmresearchlab.org