Methodology and Importance
Our data collection process is labor intensive. We employ mostly undergraduate research assistants to find the data through several approaches, all of which require research assistants (RAs) to go county-by-county collecting the relevant information. This team of RAs includes students from Scripps College, Pomona College, Pitzer College, Claremont Graduate University, University of Pittsburgh, and Towson University.
MoVE Score
How the Score is Calculated
The score is constructed as a composite index that combines multiple indicators related to voter information, registration access, administrative support, and voting infrastructure. Each individual component is first standardized so that all measures are placed on the same scale. This step ensures that no single factor carries more weight simply because it was originally measured in larger numerical units. Standardization allows each component to contribute equally to the overall score.
After standardization, the components are added together to create a single additive index. Because each element is weighted equally, the final score reflects the cumulative strength of all included factors. Jurisdictions that perform consistently well across many areas will receive higher overall scores, while those with weaker performance across multiple components will receive lower scores.
The combined index is then rescaled to a 0–100 range to make interpretation more intuitive. A score of 0 represents the lowest observed level of overall performance in the dataset, and 100 represents the highest observed level. Scores in between indicate relative standing: higher values reflect stronger overall infrastructure, access, and support, while lower values indicate comparatively fewer resources or weaker systems. Importantly, the score is comparative within the dataset — it shows how units perform relative to one another rather than against an absolute benchmar
What the Score Means
A county with a higher score (closer to 100) is performing well across the different dimensions measured—meaning residents generally have strong access to registration and voting information, polling options, language support, drop boxes or vote centers, reliable mail access, and adequate administrative capacity and state support. These places tend to offer clearer communication, better staffing, more voting options, and fewer structural barriers overall.
A lower score (closer to 0) signals that a county may have weaknesses in several of those areas—such as limited information channels, fewer voting options, communication gaps about changes, staffing shortages, or weaker mail service or state support. Lower scores do not necessarily imply intentional barriers; rather, they highlight areas where access is more constrained and where improvements would make voting easier and more equitable.
We gather data on how counties provide registration and voting information by examining publicly available sources such as county election office websites, DMV service descriptions, government agency pages, and PDF guides. When online information is limited, we supplement with direct outreach via email or phone to local election officials, public assistance offices, and DMV branches. We then code the presence or absence of services (e.g., whether information is provided at DMVs, in minority languages, or through media outlets) using dichotomous (0/1) or additive scales.
Why This Information Matters
Understanding where and how registration and voting information is disseminated helps assess whether voters have equitable access to fundamental election resources. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) requires that states offer registration at DMVs, by mail, and at public assistance and disability offices, so documenting compliance reveals where voters may be underserved. Moreover, outreach to general and minority media sources is essential to reaching younger voters, low‑income residents, and communities of color, who rely on these channels at higher rates to prepare for elections.
We review county election websites and state-level directives to identify policies on informing voters about polling place changes, drop box availability, early voting locations, and vote centers. When online information is insufficient, we rely on direct communication with county clerks or election supervisors to confirm practices. Each item is coded dichotomously (0/1) to record whether voters are notified about changes through official communication channels.
Why This Information Matters
Changes to polling places, drop boxes, and early voting sites significantly affect voter participation. Research shows that reduced or relocated polling locations can suppress turnout — especially among minority voters — even when absentee voting options exist. Knowing which counties proactively inform voters helps identify where last‑minute changes could lead to confusion, long lines, or disenfranchisement. Tracking these practices allows the MoVE project to measure how effectively counties maintain voter access during shifting election conditions.
We examine official county budget documents, state election funding reports, public briefings, and staffing updates to determine whether counties have adequate poll worker staffing, training, and funding. We also review state allocations of Help America Vote Act (HAVA) funds and whether counties publicly acknowledge receipt or use of these funds. Media campaigns, diversity of poll workers, and language assistance offerings are evaluated using news releases, county outreach posts, and election office statements.
Why This Information Matters
Poll worker shortages, lack of training, and inadequate funding directly threaten the smooth and equitable functioning of elections. Shortages can cause polling place closures or consolidations, disproportionately affecting marginalized groups. Meanwhile, the presence of diverse, well‑trained poll workers improves accessibility and voter trust. Accurate measurement of administrative capacity allows MoVE to identify regions at risk of service failures and advocate for better resource allocation.
We determine county availability of drop boxes, vote centers, and residential mail delivery by reviewing state statutes, county election office information, USPS service maps, and national datasets from NCSL and USPS. If postal access or remote voting options are unclear, we contact local officials to confirm whether services exist across the entire county or only in specific areas. All variables are coded dichotomously (0/1) to capture presence or absence of these voting methods.
Why This Information Matters
Alternative voting methods are crucial for accessibility, especially for rural areas, voters with limited transportation, and individuals who cannot vote on Election Day. Lack of drop boxes, limited mail service, or absence of vote centers can significantly reduce convenience and contribute to lower turnout. Measuring these variables helps reveal structural barriers that affect both the efficiency and equity of voting systems.
We review state election laws, county regulations, and published observation policies to determine whether nonpartisan and partisan observers are allowed. For historical voting rights abuses, we use Department of Justice records, civil rights lawsuits, and public reports compiled over the past 25 years. Counties are coded using Likert or dichotomous scales based on documented violations or legal restrictions.
Why This Information Matters
Oversight and transparency are foundational to public trust in elections. Allowing nonpartisan observers promotes accountability, while excessive partisan oversight may introduce conflict or bias. Understanding a county’s history of voting rights violations reveals long-term structural inequities and helps contextualize present-day accessibility conditions. These measures allow MoVE to account for both current policies and legacy factors influencing voter experience.