IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2310.05275.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Did Private Election Administration Funding Advantage Democrats in 2020?

Author

Listed:
  • Apoorva Lal
  • Daniel M Thompson

Abstract

Private donors contributed more than $350 million to local election officials to support the administration of the 2020 election. Supporters argue these grants were neutral and necessary to maintain normal election operations during the pandemic, while critics worry these grants mostly went to Democratic strongholds and tilted election outcomes. These concerns have led twenty-four states to restrict private election grants. How much did these grants shape the 2020 presidential election? To answer this question, we collect administrative data on private election administration grants and election outcomes. We then use new advances in synthetic control methods to compare presidential election results and turnout in counties that received grants to counties with identical average presidential election results and turnout before 2020. While counties that favor Democrats were much more likely to apply for a grant, we find that the grants did not have a noticeable effect on the presidential election. Our estimates of the average effect of receiving a grant on Democratic vote share range from 0.02 percentage points to 0.36 percentage points. Our estimates of the average effect of receiving a grant on turnout range from -0.03 percentage points to 0.13 percentage points. Across specifications, our 95% confidence intervals typically include negative effects, and our confidence intervals from all specifications fail to include effects on Democratic vote share larger than 0.58 percentage points and effects on turnout larger than 0.40 percentage points. We characterize the magnitude of our effects by asking how large they are compared to the margin by which Biden won the 2020 election. In simple bench-marking exercises, we find that the effects of the grants were likely too small to have changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

Suggested Citation

  • Apoorva Lal & Daniel M Thompson, 2023. "Did Private Election Administration Funding Advantage Democrats in 2020?," Papers 2310.05275, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2310.05275
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.05275
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zachary Mohr & JoEllen V. Pope & Martha E. Kropf & Mary Jo Shepherd, 2019. "Strategic Spending: Does Politics Influence Election Administration Expenditure?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 63(2), pages 427-438, April.
    2. Enrico Cantoni & Vincent Pons, 2021. "Strict Id Laws Don’t Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel, 2008–2018," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(4), pages 2615-2660.
    3. Hainmueller, Jens, 2012. "Entropy Balancing for Causal Effects: A Multivariate Reweighting Method to Produce Balanced Samples in Observational Studies," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 25-46, January.
    4. Dmitry Arkhangelsky & Susan Athey & David A. Hirshberg & Guido W. Imbens & Stefan Wager, 2021. "Synthetic Difference-in-Differences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(12), pages 4088-4118, December.
    5. Susan Athey & Mohsen Bayati & Nikolay Doudchenko & Guido Imbens & Khashayar Khosravi, 2021. "Matrix Completion Methods for Causal Panel Data Models," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 116(536), pages 1716-1730, October.
    6. Xu, Yiqing, 2017. "Generalized Synthetic Control Method: Causal Inference with Interactive Fixed Effects Models," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 57-76, January.
    7. David C. Kimball & Martha Kropf, 2006. "The Street‐Level Bureaucrats of Elections: Selection Methods for Local Election Officials," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 23(6), pages 1257-1268, November.
    8. Abadie, Alberto & Diamond, Alexis & Hainmueller, Jens, 2010. "Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 105(490), pages 493-505.
    9. Ethan Kaplan & Haishan Yuan, 2020. "Early Voting Laws, Voter Turnout, and Partisan Vote Composition: Evidence from Ohio," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(1), pages 32-60, January.
    10. Levitt, Steven D, 1994. "Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the Effect of Campaign Spending on Election Outcomes in the U.S. House," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(4), pages 777-798, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sviták, Jan & Tichem, Jan & Haasbeek, Stefan, 2021. "Price effects of search advertising restrictions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    2. Stefano, Roberta di & Mellace, Giovanni, 2020. "The inclusive synthetic control method," Discussion Papers on Economics 14/2020, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Economics.
    3. Eli Ben‐Michael & Avi Feller & Jesse Rothstein, 2022. "Synthetic controls with staggered adoption," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 84(2), pages 351-381, April.
    4. Sandro Heiniger, 2024. "Data-driven model selection within the matrix completion method for causal panel data models," Papers 2402.01069, arXiv.org.
    5. David Gilchrist & Thomas Emery & Nuno Garoupa & Rok Spruk, 2023. "Synthetic Control Method: A tool for comparative case studies in economic history," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(2), pages 409-445, April.
    6. Dallas Dotter & Duncan Chaplin & Maria Bartlett, "undated". "Impacts of School Reforms in Washington, DC on Student Achievement," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 44e95d7566434a21b8d57f951, Mathematica Policy Research.
    7. Roberta Di Stefano & Giovanni Mellace, 2020. "The inclusive synthetic control method," Working Papers 21/20, Sapienza University of Rome, DISS.
    8. Dmitry Arkhangelsky & Guido Imbens, 2023. "Causal Models for Longitudinal and Panel Data: A Survey," Papers 2311.15458, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    9. Callaway, Brantly & Karami, Sonia, 2023. "Treatment effects in interactive fixed effects models with a small number of time periods," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 233(1), pages 184-208.
    10. Luis Costa & Vivek F. Farias & Patricio Foncea & Jingyuan (Donna) Gan & Ayush Garg & Ivo Rosa Montenegro & Kumarjit Pathak & Tianyi Peng & Dusan Popovic, 2023. "Generalized Synthetic Control for TestOps at ABI: Models, Algorithms, and Infrastructure," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 53(5), pages 336-349, September.
    11. Guido W. Imbens & Davide Viviano, 2023. "Identification and Inference for Synthetic Controls with Confounding," Papers 2312.00955, arXiv.org.
    12. Hollingsworth, Alex & Wing, Coady, 2020. "Tactics for design and inference in synthetic control studies: An applied example using high-dimensional data," SocArXiv fc9xt, Center for Open Science.
    13. Viviano, Davide & Bradic, Jelena, 2023. "Synthetic Learner: Model-free inference on treatments over time," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 691-713.
    14. Xingyu Li & Yan Shen & Qiankun Zhou, 2022. "Confidence Intervals of Treatment Effects in Panel Data Models with Interactive Fixed Effects," Papers 2202.12078, arXiv.org.
    15. Nicolaj N. Mühlbach, 2020. "Tree-based Synthetic Control Methods: Consequences of moving the US Embassy," CREATES Research Papers 2020-04, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    16. Davide Viviano & Jelena Bradic, 2019. "Synthetic learner: model-free inference on treatments over time," Papers 1904.01490, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    17. Irene Botosaru & Bruno Ferman, 2019. "On the role of covariates in the synthetic control method," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 22(2), pages 117-130.
    18. Dennis Shen & Peng Ding & Jasjeet Sekhon & Bin Yu, 2022. "Same Root Different Leaves: Time Series and Cross-Sectional Methods in Panel Data," Papers 2207.14481, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2022.
    19. Tomasz Serwach, 2023. "The European Union and within‐country income inequalities. The case of the new member states," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(7), pages 1890-1939, July.
    20. Michał Marcin Kobierecki & Michał Pierzgalski, 2022. "Sports Mega-Events and Economic Growth: A Synthetic Control Approach," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 23(5), pages 567-597, June.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2310.05275. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.