Report Highlights

1. Accessibility of the bi-lingual ballot: A survey of Spanish and English speaking eligible voters for the Cuyahoga County Board of ElectionsThe Baldwin Wallace University Community Research Institute

2. Report Highlights • Survey project goals and strategies • Recommendations based on research findings • Survey respondent demographics • Respondent voting behaviors • Ballot design preferences • Outreach to voters and non-voters

3. Survey project goals • Does the bi-lingual ballot help Spanish-speaking citizens to vote? • What outreach approaches will help increase voter turnout among Spanish-speaking citizens? • Would an alternative ballot design offered in Spanish and English result in better usage by Spanish speaking citizens? • Does the current bi-lingual ballot design hinder access by English-speaking citizens?

4. Data Gathering Strategies • Walking survey of neighborhoods and public gathering places with higher populations of Hispanics: Clark-Fulton; Brooklyn Centre; Detroit Shoreway; Ohio City • Exit polling on Election Day (Nov. 5th) • Phone survey of Cleveland west side residents • Phone survey of registered voters across Cuyahoga County • Literature review of studies and surveys of Hispanic voters across the U.S.

5. Exit Poll Survey Collection bi-lingual stations=694 surveysnon-bilingual stations = 707 surveys

6. Map of Cleveland Near West Side Community Survey Locations

7. Cuyahoga County Residential Landline Phone Survey (11/12/13 – 11/26/13) 523 surveys completed4.3% margin of error at 95% confidence level

8. RecommendationsBallot Design • Respondent Preference for Existing Bilingual Ballot Design: based on the survey results, stay with the existing bilingual ballot. • Side-by-Side Bilingual Ballot Option: If the side-by-side ballot is considered, this will need further study, possibly through use of focus group design to explore voter and non-voter perceptions in more detail. Unfamiliarity with the design option may have affected respondent perceptions. • Separate Language Ballot: Received lowest level of preference among overall respondents in three surveys. Did get more support from Spanish-speaking respondents in community survey.

9. RecommendationsVoting Accessibility • Voting Accessibility: increase outreach and publicity efforts for elections that follow changes to voting locations. Monitor parking accessibility during peak voting times. Consider changing voting locations to provide better accessibility, particularly concerning parking. • Outreach to Eligible Voters: consider outreach to employers with information about legal requirements for allowing time for employees to vote. This may need to focus on employers with shift work such as fast food restaurants and manufacturing, in which shift assignments can become an obstacle to voting. An alternative is to target new voters with more information about early voting by mail.

10. RecommendationsEligible Voter Outreach • Language Outreach: work with grassroots organizations such as Esperanza, El Barrio, the Hispanic Alliance, the Spanish-American Committee, and the Hispanic Roundtable to disseminate information about voting eligibility requirements and encourage and assist with voter registration. To the degree that these efforts are already occurring, they should be maintained and expanded. • Voter Registration Outreach: Disseminate voter registration materials at public schools and libraries, particularly for parents. Consider including materials in student packets that are sent home from schools. Use exterior signage and bulletin boards at libraries and schools to post information about registration and voting locations, process, and deadlines.

11. Survey demographics: Gender, Age

12. Survey demographics: Education

13. Survey Demographics: Ethnicity/Race

14. Spanish Language Respondents: English Proficiency Proficiency in conversation Proficiency reading books, news sources

15. Respondent Voting Registration and Voting Frequency Exit poll statistical significance: language (p=.007); age (p=1.601E-12); education (p=.003); ethnicity/race (p=3.60E-11) Community survey statistical significance: age (p=.007); education (p=.003) County phone survey statistical significance: age (p=2.112E-10); ethnicity/race (p=.000); region (p=.020)

16. Types of Respondent Voting Difficulties

17. Respondent Awareness of Voting Process

18. Respondent Voting Preferences County phone survey statistical significance: age (p=.008); ethnicity/race (p=1.896E-07)

19. Ballot Design Preferences Exit poll survey statistical significance: language (p=1.683E-07); age (p=.006); ethnicity/race (p=4.107E-12) County phone survey statistical significance: ethnicity/race (p=.023)

20. Ballot Design Preferences: Exit Poll Survey Respondents

21. Ballot Design Preferences: Community Survey Voter Respondents

22. Respondent Views About Ways That Help Voters to Vote

23. Non-voter Respondents: Reasons for Not Voting Percentages exceed 100% due to respondents choosing multiple options *Note: The small numbers of responses to this question in the phone survey (n=8) renders these percentages statistically insignificant.

24. Non-Voter RespondentsMost Accessible Ways to Register to Vote

25. Respondent Sources of News Information Percentages exceed 100% due to respondents choosing multiple options

26. Discussion