This web map displays data from the voter registration database as the percent of registered voters by census tract in King County, Washington.

The data for this web map is compiled from King County Elections voter registration data for the years 2013-2019. The total number of registered voters is based on the geo-location of the voter's registered address at the time of the general election for each year. The eligible voting population, age 18 and over, is based on the estimated population increase from the US Census Bureau and the Washington Office of Financial Management and was calculated as a projected 6 percent population increase for the years 2010-2013, 7 percent population increase for the years 2010-2014, 9 percent population increase for the years 2010-2015, 11 percent population increase for the years 2010-2016 & 2017, 14 percent population increase for the years 2010-2018 and 17 percent population increase for the years 2010-2019. The total population 18 and over in 2010 was 1,517,747 in King County, Washington. The percentage of registered voters represents the number of people who are registered to vote as compared to the eligible voting population, age 18 and over.

The voter registration data by census tract was grouped into six percentage range estimates: 50% or below, 51-60%, 61-70%, 71-80%, 81-90% and 91% or above with an overall 84 percent registration rate. In the map the lighter colors represent a relatively low percentage range of voter registration and the darker colors represent a relatively high percentage range of voter registration. PDF maps of these data can be viewed at King County Elections downloadable voter registration maps.

The 2019 General Election Voter Turnout layer is voter turnout data by historical precinct boundaries for the corresponding year. The data is grouped into six percentage ranges: 0-30%, 31-40%, 41-50% 51-60%, 61-70%, and 71-100%. The lighter colors represent lower turnout and the darker colors represent higher turnout.

The King County Demographics Layer is census data for language, income, poverty, race and ethnicity at the census tract level and is based on the 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5 year Average provided by the United States Census Bureau. Since the data is based on a survey, they are considered to be estimates and should be used with that understanding. The demographic data sets were developed and are maintained by King County Staff to support the King County Equity and Social Justice program. Other data for this map is located in the King County GIS Spatial Data Catalog, where data is managed by the King County GIS Center, a multi-department enterprise GIS in King County, Washington.

King County has nearly 1.3 million registered voters and is the largest jurisdiction in the United States to conduct all elections by mail. In the map you can view the percent of registered voters by census tract, compare registration within political districts, compare registration and demographic data, verify your voter registration or register to vote through a link to the VoteWA, Washington State Online Voter Registration web page.

PROBLEM AND OPPORTUNITY In the United States, voting is largely a private matter. A registered voter is given a randomized ballot form or machine to prevent linkage between their voting choices and their identity. This disconnect supports confidence in the election process, but it provides obstacles to an election's analysis. A common solution is to field exit polls, interviewing voters immediately after leaving their polling location. This method is rife with bias, however, and functionally limited in direct demographics data collected. For the 2020 general election, though, most states published their election results for each voting location. These publications were additionally supported by the geographical areas assigned to each location, the voting precincts. As a result, geographic processing can now be applied to project precinct election results onto Census block groups. While precinct have few demographic traits directly, their geographies have characteristics that make them projectable onto U.S. Census geographies. Both state voting precincts and U.S. Census block groups: are exclusive, and do not overlap are adjacent, fully covering their corresponding state and potentially county have roughly the same size in area, population and voter presence Analytically, a projection of local demographics does not allow conclusions about voters themselves. However, the dataset does allow statements related to the geographies that yield voting behavior. One could say, for example, that an area dominated by a particular voting pattern would have mean traits of age, race, income or household structure. The dataset that results from this programming provides voting results allocated by Census block groups. The block group identifier can be joined to Census Decennial and American Community Survey demographic estimates. DATA SOURCES The state election results and geographies have been compiled by Voting and Election Science team on Harvard's dataverse. State voting precincts lie within state and county boundaries. The Census Bureau, on the other hand, publishes its estimates across a variety of geographic definitions including a hierarchy of states, counties, census tracts and block groups. Their definitions can be found here. The geometric shapefiles for each block group are available here. The lowest level of this geography changes often and can obsolesce before the next census survey (Decennial or American Community Survey programs). The second to lowest census level, block groups, have the benefit of both granularity and stability however. The 2020 Decennial survey details US demographics into 217,740 block groups with between a few hundred and a few thousand people. Dataset Structure The dataset's columns include: Column Definition BLOCKGROUP_GEOID 12 digit primary key. Census GEOID of the block group row. This code concatenates: 2 digit state 3 digit county within state 6 digit Census Tract identifier 1 digit Census Block Group identifier within tract STATE State abbreviation, redundent with 2 digit state FIPS code above REP Votes for Republican party candidate for president DEM Votes for Democratic party candidate for president LIB Votes for Libertarian party candidate for president OTH Votes for presidential candidates other than Republican, Democratic or Libertarian AREA square kilometers of area associated with this block group GAP total area of the block group, net of area attributed to voting precincts PRECINCTS Number of voting precincts that intersect this block group ASSUMPTIONS, NOTES AND CONCERNS: Votes are attributed based upon the proportion of the precinct's area that intersects the corresponding block group. Alternative methods are left to the analyst's initiative. 50 states and the District of Columbia are in scope as those U.S. possessions voting in the general election for the U.S. Presidency. Three states did not report their results at the precinct level: South Dakota, Kentucky and West Virginia. A dummy block group is added for each of these states to maintain national totals. These states represent 2.1% of all votes cast. Counties are commonly coded using FIPS codes. However, each election result file may have the county field named differently. Also, three states do not share county definitions - Delaware, Massachusetts, Alaska and the District of Columbia. Block groups may be used to capture geographies that do not have population like bodies of water. As a result, block groups without intersection voting precincts are not uncommon. In the U.S., elections are administered at a state level with the Federal Elections Commission compiling state totals against the Electoral College weights. The states have liberty, though, to define and change their own voting precincts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_precinct. The Census Bureau... Visit https://dataone.org/datasets/sha256%3A05707c1dc04a814129f751937a6ea56b08413546b18b351a85bc96da16a7f8b5 for complete metadata about this dataset.

This data collection contains voter registration and turnout surveys. The files contain summaries at state, town, and county levels. Each level of data include: total population, total voting-age population, total voter registration (excluding ND, WI), total ballots cast, total votes cast for president, and voter registration by party. Note: see the documentation for information on missing data.

Dave Leip's website

The Dave Leip website here: https://uselectionatlas.org/BOTTOM/store_data.php lists the available data. Files are occasionally updated by Dave Leip, and new versions are made available, but CCSS is not notified. If you suspect the file you want may be updated, please get in touch with CCSS. These files were last updated on 9 JUL 2024.

Note that file version numbers are those assigned to them by Dave Leip's Election Atlas. Please refer to the Data and Reproduction Archive Version number in your citations for the full dataset.

For additional information on file layout, etc. see https://uselectionatlas.org/BOTTOM/DOWNLOAD/spread_turnout.html.

Similar data may be available at https://www.electproject.org/election-data/voter-turnout-data dating back to 1787.

AP VoteCast is a survey of the American electorate conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago for Fox News, NPR, PBS NewsHour, Univision News, USA Today Network, The Wall Street Journal and The Associated Press.

AP VoteCast combines interviews with a random sample of registered voters drawn from state voter files with self-identified registered voters selected using nonprobability approaches. In general elections, it also includes interviews with self-identified registered voters conducted using NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak® panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population.

Interviews are conducted in English and Spanish. Respondents may receive a small monetary incentive for completing the survey. Participants selected as part of the random sample can be contacted by phone and mail and can take the survey by phone or online. Participants selected as part of the nonprobability sample complete the survey online.

In the 2020 general election, the survey of 133,103 interviews with registered voters was conducted between Oct. 26 and Nov. 3, concluding as polls closed on Election Day. AP VoteCast delivered data about the presidential election in all 50 states as well as all Senate and governors’ races in 2020.

Using this Data - IMPORTANT

This is survey data and must be properly weighted during analysis: DO NOT REPORT THIS DATA AS RAW OR AGGREGATE NUMBERS!!

Instead, use statistical software such as R or SPSS to weight the data.

National Survey

The national AP VoteCast survey of voters and nonvoters in 2020 is based on the results of the 50 state-based surveys and a nationally representative survey of 4,141 registered voters conducted between Nov. 1 and Nov. 3 on the probability-based AmeriSpeak panel. It included 41,776 probability interviews completed online and via telephone, and 87,186 nonprobability interviews completed online. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 0.4 percentage points for voters and 0.9 percentage points for nonvoters.

State Surveys

In 20 states in 2020, AP VoteCast is based on roughly 1,000 probability-based interviews conducted online and by phone, and roughly 3,000 nonprobability interviews conducted online. In these states, the margin of sampling error is about plus or minus 2.3 percentage points for voters and 5.5 percentage points for nonvoters.

In an additional 20 states, AP VoteCast is based on roughly 500 probability-based interviews conducted online and by phone, and roughly 2,000 nonprobability interviews conducted online. In these states, the margin of sampling error is about plus or minus 2.9 percentage points for voters and 6.9 percentage points for nonvoters.

In the remaining 10 states, AP VoteCast is based on about 1,000 nonprobability interviews conducted online. In these states, the margin of sampling error is about plus or minus 4.5 percentage points for voters and 11.0 percentage points for nonvoters.

Although there is no statistically agreed upon approach for calculating margins of error for nonprobability samples, these margins of error were estimated using a measure of uncertainty that incorporates the variability associated with the poll estimates, as well as the variability associated with the survey weights as a result of calibration. After calibration, the nonprobability sample yields approximately unbiased estimates.

As with all surveys, AP VoteCast is subject to multiple sources of error, including from sampling, question wording and order, and nonresponse.

Sampling Details

Probability-based Registered Voter Sample

In each of the 40 states in which AP VoteCast included a probability-based sample, NORC obtained a sample of registered voters from Catalist LLC’s registered voter database. This database includes demographic information, as well as addresses and phone numbers for registered voters, allowing potential respondents to be contacted via mail and telephone. The sample is stratified by state, partisanship, and a modeled likelihood to respond to the postcard based on factors such as age, race, gender, voting history, and census block group education. In addition, NORC attempted to match sampled records to a registered voter database maintained by L2, which provided additional phone numbers and demographic information.

Prior to dialing, all probability sample records were mailed a postcard inviting them to complete the survey either online using a unique PIN or via telephone by calling a toll-free number. Postcards were addressed by name to the sampled registered voter if that individual was under age 35; postcards were addressed to “registered voter” in all other cases. Telephone interviews were conducted with the adult that answered the phone following confirmation of registered voter status in the state.

Nonprobability Sample

Nonprobability participants include panelists from Dynata or Lucid, including members of its third-party panels. In addition, some registered voters were selected from the voter file, matched to email addresses by V12, and recruited via an email invitation to the survey. Digital fingerprint software and panel-level ID validation is used to prevent respondents from completing the AP VoteCast survey multiple times.

AmeriSpeak Sample

During the initial recruitment phase of the AmeriSpeak panel, randomly selected U.S. households were sampled with a known, non-zero probability of selection from the NORC National Sample Frame and then contacted by mail, email, telephone and field interviewers (face-to-face). The panel provides sample coverage of approximately 97% of the U.S. household population. Those excluded from the sample include people with P.O. Box-only addresses, some addresses not listed in the U.S. Postal Service Delivery Sequence File and some newly constructed dwellings. Registered voter status was confirmed in field for all sampled panelists.

Weighting Details

AP VoteCast employs a four-step weighting approach that combines the probability sample with the nonprobability sample and refines estimates at a subregional level within each state. In a general election, the 50 state surveys and the AmeriSpeak survey are weighted separately and then combined into a survey representative of voters in all 50 states.

State Surveys

First, weights are constructed separately for the probability sample (when available) and the nonprobability sample for each state survey. These weights are adjusted to population totals to correct for demographic imbalances in age, gender, education and race/ethnicity of the responding sample compared to the population of registered voters in each state. In 2020, the adjustment targets are derived from a combination of data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s November 2018 Current Population Survey Voting and Registration Supplement, Catalist’s voter file and the Census Bureau’s 2018 American Community Survey. Prior to adjusting to population totals, the probability-based registered voter list sample weights are adjusted for differential non-response related to factors such as availability of phone numbers, age, race and partisanship.

Second, all respondents receive a calibration weight. The calibration weight is designed to ensure the nonprobability sample is similar to the probability sample in regard to variables that are predictive of vote choice, such as partisanship or direction of the country, which cannot be fully captured through the prior demographic adjustments. The calibration benchmarks are based on regional level estimates from regression models that incorporate all probability and nonprobability cases nationwide.

Third, all respondents in each state are weighted to improve estimates for substate geographic regions. This weight combines the weighted probability (if available) and nonprobability samples, and then uses a small area model to improve the estimate within subregions of a state.

Fourth, the survey results are weighted to the actual vote count following the completion of the election. This weighting is done in 10–30 subregions within each state.

National Survey

In a general election, the national survey is weighted to combine the 50 state surveys with the nationwide AmeriSpeak survey. Each of the state surveys is weighted as described. The AmeriSpeak survey receives a nonresponse-adjusted weight that is then adjusted to national totals for registered voters that in 2020 were derived from the U.S. Census Bureau’s November 2018 Current Population Survey Voting and Registration Supplement, the Catalist voter file and the Census Bureau’s 2018 American Community Survey. The state surveys are further adjusted to represent their appropriate proportion of the registered voter population for the country and combined with the AmeriSpeak survey. After all votes are counted, the national data file is adjusted to match the national popular vote for president.

This dataset contains counts of voter registration and voter turnout for all counties in the United States for the years 2004-2022. It also contains measures of each county's Democratic and Republican partisanship, including six-year longitudinal partisan indices for 2006-2022.

PROBLEM AND OPPORTUNITY In the United States, voting is largely a private matter. A registered voter is given a randomized ballot form or machine to prevent linkage between their voting choices and their identity. This disconnect supports confidence in the election process, but it provides obstacles to an election's analysis. A common solution is to field exit polls, interviewing voters immediately after leaving their polling location. This method is rife with bias, however, and functionally limited in direct demographics data collected. For the 2020 general election, though, most states published their election results for each voting location. These publications were additionally supported by the geographical areas assigned to each location, the voting precincts. As a result, geographic processing can now be applied to project precinct election results onto Census block groups. While precinct have few demographic traits directly, their geographies have characteristics that make them projectable onto U.S. Census geographies. Both state voting precincts and U.S. Census block groups: are exclusive, and do not overlap are adjacent, fully covering their corresponding state and potentially county have roughly the same size in area, population and voter presence Analytically, a projection of local demographics does not allow conclusions about voters themselves. However, the dataset does allow statements related to the geographies that yield voting behavior. One could say, for example, that an area dominated by a particular voting pattern would have mean traits of age, race, income or household structure. The dataset that results from this programming provides voting results allocated by Census block groups. The block group identifier can be joined to Census Decennial and American Community Survey demographic estimates. DATA SOURCES The state election results and geographies have been compiled by Voting and Election Science team on Harvard's dataverse. State voting precincts lie within state and county boundaries. The Census Bureau, on the other hand, publishes its estimates across a variety of geographic definitions including a hierarchy of states, counties, census tracts and block groups. Their definitions can be found here. The geometric shapefiles for each block group are available here. The lowest level of this geography changes often and can obsolesce before the next census survey (Decennial or American Community Survey programs). The second to lowest census level, block groups, have the benefit of both granularity and stability however. The 2020 Decennial survey details US demographics into 217,740 block groups with between a few hundred and a few thousand people. Dataset Structure The dataset's columns include: Column Definition BLOCKGROUP_GEOID 12 digit primary key. Census GEOID of the block group row. This code concatenates: 2 digit state 3 digit county within state 6 digit Census Tract identifier 1 digit Census Block Group identifier within tract STATE State abbreviation, redundent with 2 digit state FIPS code above REP Votes for Republican party candidate for president DEM Votes for Democratic party candidate for president LIB Votes for Libertarian party candidate for president OTH Votes for presidential candidates other than Republican, Democratic or Libertarian AREA square kilometers of area associated with this block group GAP total area of the block group, net of area attributed to voting precincts PRECINCTS Number of voting precincts that intersect this block group ASSUMPTIONS, NOTES AND CONCERNS: Votes are attributed based upon the proportion of the precinct's area that intersects the corresponding block group. Alternative methods are left to the analyst's initiative. 50 states and the District of Columbia are in scope as those U.S. possessions voting in the general election for the U.S. Presidency. Three states did not report their results at the precinct level: South Dakota, Kentucky and West Virginia. A dummy block group is added for each of these states to maintain national totals. These states represent 2.1% of all votes cast. Counties are commonly coded using FIPS codes. However, each election result file may have the county field named differently. Also, three states do not share county definitions - Delaware, Massachusetts, Alaska and the District of Columbia. Block groups may be used to capture geographies that do not have population like bodies of water. As a result, block groups without intersection voting precincts are not uncommon. In the U.S., elections are administered at a state level with the Federal Elections Commission compiling state totals against the Electoral College weights. The states have liberty, though, to define and change their own voting precincts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_precinct. The Census Bureau practices "data suppression", filtering some block groups from demographic publication because they do not meet a population threshold. This practice...

This table contains data on the percent of adults (18 years or older) who are registered voters and the percent of adults who voted in general elections, for California, its regions, counties, cities/towns, and census tracts. Data is from the Statewide Database, University of California Berkeley Law, and the California Secretary of State, Elections Division. The table is part of a series of indicators in the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project of the Office of Health Equity. Political participation can be associated with the health of a community through two possible mechanisms: through the implementation of social policies or as an indirect measure of social capital. Disparities in political participation across socioeconomic groups can influence political outcomes and the resulting policies could have an impact on the opportunities available to the poor to live a healthy life. Lower representation of poorer voters could result in reductions of social programs aimed toward supporting disadvantaged groups. Although there is no direct evidentiary connection between voter registration or participation and health, there is evidence that populations with higher levels of political participation also have greater social capital. Social capital is defined as resources accessed by individuals or groups through social networks that provide a mutual benefit. Several studies have shown a positive association between social capital and lower mortality rates, and higher self- assessed health ratings. There is also evidence of a cycle where lower levels of political participation are associated with poor self-reported health, and poor self-reported health hinders political participation. More information about the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the About/Attachments section.

The Voter Participation indicator presents voter turnout in Champaign County as a percentage, calculated using two different methods.

In the first method, the voter turnout percentage is calculated using the number of ballots cast compared to the total population in the county that is eligible to vote. In the second method, the voter turnout percentage is calculated using the number of ballots cast compared to the number of registered voters in the county.

Since both methods are in use by other agencies, and since there are real differences in the figures that both methods return, we have provided the voter participation rate for Champaign County using each method.

Voter participation is a solid illustration of a community’s engagement in the political process at the federal and state levels. One can infer a high level of political engagement from high voter participation rates.

The voter participation rate calculated using the total eligible population is consistently lower than the voter participation rate calculated using the number of registered voters, since the number of registered voters is smaller than the total eligible population.

There are consistent trends in both sets of data: the voter participation rate, no matter how it is calculated, shows large spikes in presidential election years (e.g., 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020) and smaller spikes in intermediary even years (e.g., 2010, 2014, 2018, 2022). The lowest levels of voter participation can be seen in odd years (e.g., 2015, 2017, 2019, 2021, 2023).

This data primarily comes from the election results resources on the Champaign County Clerk website. Election results resources from Champaign County include the number of ballots cast and the number of registered voters. The results are published frequently, following each election.

Data on the total eligible population for Champaign County was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau, using American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimates for each year starting in 2005, when the American Community Survey was created. The estimates are released annually by the Census Bureau.

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of providing the standard 1-year data products, the Census Bureau released experimental estimates from the 1-year data in 2020. This includes a limited number of data tables for the nation, states, and the District of Columbia. The Census Bureau states that the 2020 ACS 1-year experimental tables use an experimental estimation methodology and should not be compared with other ACS data. For these reasons, and because this data is not available for Champaign County, the eligible voting population for 2020 is not included in this Indicator.

For interested data users, the 2020 ACS 1-Year Experimental data release includes datasets on Population by Sex and Population Under 18 Years by Age.

Sources: Champaign County Clerk Historical Election Data; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (10 October 2024).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (5 October 2023).; Champaign County Clerk Historical Election Data; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (7 October 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; Champaign County Clerk Election History; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 May 2019).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 May 2019).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (6 March 2017).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2006 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2005 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05003; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (15 March 2016).

Abstract

The L2 Voter and Demographic Dataset includes demographic and voter history tables for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The dataset is built from publicly available government records about voter registration and election participation. These records indicate whether a person voted in an election or not, but they do not record whom that person voted for. Voter registration and election participation data are augmented by demographic information from outside data sources.

Methodology

To create this file, L2 processes registered voter data on an ongoing basis for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, with refreshes of the underlying state voter data typically at least every six months and refreshes of telephone numbers and National Change of Address processing approximately every 30 to 60 days. These data are standardized and enhanced with propriety commercial data and modeling codes and consist of approximately 185,000,000 records nationwide.

Usage

For each state, there are two available tables: demographic and voter history. The demographic and voter tables can be joined on the LALVOTERIDvariable. One can also use the LALVOTERIDvariable to link the L2 Voter and Demographic Dataset with the L2 Consumer Dataset.

In addition, the LALVOTERIDvariable can be used to validate the state. For example, let's look at the LALVOTERID = LALCA3169443. The characters in the fourth and fifth positions of this identifier are 'CA' (California). The second way to validate the state is by using the RESIDENCE_ADDRESSES_STATEvariable, which should have a value of 'CA' (California).

The date appended to each table name represents when the data was last updated. These dates will differ state by state because states update their voter files at different cadences.

The demographic files use 698 consistent variables. For more information about these variables, see 2025-01-10-VM2-File-Layout.xlsx.

The voter history files have different variables depending on the state. The ***2025-08-05-L2-Voter-Dictionaries.tar.gz file contains .csv data dictionaries for each state's demographic and voter files. While the demographic file data dictionaries should mirror the 2025-01-10-VM2-File-Layout.xlsx*** file, the voter file data dictionaries will be unique to each state.

***2025-04-24-National-File-Notes.pdf ***contains L2 Voter and Demographic Dataset ("National File") release notes from 2018 to 2025.

***2025-08-05-L2-Voter-Fill-Rate.tar.gz ***contains .tab files tracking the percent of non-null values for any given field.

Bulk Data Access

Data access is required to view this section.

DataMapping Tool

Data access is required to view this section.

In U.S. presidential elections since 1964, voter turnout among male and female voters has changed gradually but significantly, with women consistently voting at a higher rate than men since the 1980 election. 67 percent of eligible female voters took part in the 1964 election, compared to 72 percent of male voters. This difference has been reversed in recent elections, where the share of women who voted has been larger than the share of men by around four percent since 2004.

Electoral rules have the potential to affect the size and composition of the voting public. Yet scholars disagree over whether requiring voters to register well in advance of Election Day reduces turnout. We present a new approach, using web searches for voter registration'' to measure interest in registering, both before and after registration deadlines for the 2012 US presidential election. Many Americans sought information onvoter registration'' even after the deadline in their state had passed. Combining web search data with evidence on the timing of registration for 80 million Americans, we model the relationship between search and registration. Extrapolating this relationship to the post-deadline period, we estimate that an additional three to four million Americans would have registered in time to vote, if deadlines had been extended to Election Day. We test our approach by predicting out of sample and with historical data. Web search data provide new opportunities to measure and study information-seeking behavior.

Research suggests that partisans are increasingly avoiding members of the other party—in their choice of neighborhood, social network, even their spouse. Leveraging a national database of voter registration records, we analyze 18 million households in the U.S. We find that three in ten married couples have mismatched party affiliations. We observe the relationship between inter-party marriage and gender, age, and geography. We discuss how the findings bear on key questions of political behavior in the US. Then, we test whether mixed-partisan couples participate less actively in politics. We find that voter turnout is correlated with the party of one’s spouse. A partisan who is married to a co-partisan is more likely to vote. This phenomenon is especially pronounced for partisans in closed primaries, elections in which non-partisan registered spouses are ineligible to participate.

Political campaigns spend months ahead of an election contacting voters. Through voter contact, politicians build coalitions, make campaign promises, and engage citizens in the electoral process. How do campaigns decide which voters to communicate with and which voters to ignore? Campaigns seek out supporters to mobilize and ambivalent voters to persuade, but how do they know who is likely to be supportive or persuadable? The theory of informational resources I develop posits that candidate strategy is highly dependent on available data. Political campaigns have a limited set of resources with which they can sort the electorate into likely supporters, persuadables, and opponents. The information that enables them to sort the electorate comes primarily from public records, namely voter registration files. Because the laws that govern data collection vary by jurisdiction, political campaign strategy varies geographically as a function of available information. To understand the role of information in strategic decision-making, I investigate a database containing all registered voters in the United States that is used by actual campaigns for the purpose of voter contact. Three essays relay the findings from this database and from interviews with campaign operatives. The first essay explores strategies for identifying likely partisan supporters. I find that in states that do not collect party data in the public record, political campaigns cannot easily identify their own supporters. The second essay explores strategies for identifying persuadable voters. On account of data limitations, the voters that campaigns typically target with persuasion messages are a completely different set of individuals from those who would appear to be undecided, independent, or cross-pressured according to survey measures. The third essay explores the role of racial identifiers that are listed on the public recor d in eight southern states. When racial data is available, candidates sort the electorate by race, leading to the mobilization of voters whose races are identified and to racial polarization of voters into different parties. The role of information in guiding campaign strategy challenges extant models of political mobilization and identifies important political consequences of the recent and dramatic developments in data availability.

Summary details for each election year for the Victorian House of Assembly general elections since 1856. This data includes electoral system characteristics, seats in chamber, number of enrolled voters, ballots cast, rate of voter turnout and rate of informal voting.

Software Nesstar Publisher, Version: 3.54

Unit of Analysis House of Assembly, Victorian Parliament

Universe Seats in the Victorian House of Assembly (Lower House) and voters in Victoria.

Time Method Time series

Collection Mode Compilation/Synthesis

Cleaning Operations The data were checked by the archive for missing variable and value labels, out of range values and wild codes, logical inconsistencies, and confidentiality.

Notes Definitions of variables : Uncontested seats: the number of seats in which only one candidate ran for office, and won the seat without any votes having to be cast. The database shows the number of voters enrolled in uncontested seats. Although there have been very few uncontested seats at general elections in Australia since 1980, they were a regular feature of elections in some states until the 1960s. The frequency of uncontested seats and the number of enrolled voters they contain can be a useful indicator of the competitiveness of the party system at a general election. For more information and analysis, see Campbell Sharman, 'Uncontested Seats and the Evolution of Party Competition: The Australian Case', Party Politics, 9(6) November 2003: 679-702. ballots Ballots are the papers on which votes are recorded. A vote can be a single mark, or one or more marks or numbers to elect one or more candidates. At some elections, voters could mark ballots with more than one vote, giving the result that there were more votes cast than voters. This was the case for elections for the South Australian House of Assembly until 1927. Turnout - The turnout at at election is the proportion of voters on the electoral roll (registered voters) who cast a vote. In this database, turnout is measured as the rate of voting in contested seats, shown as a percentage of registered voters; see also compulsory voting. Electoral district - Electoral districts are also called electorates but, as the term electorate also refers to the whole body of voters across a political system, the term electoral district has been used in this database to keep the distinction clear; Electoral roll - The electoral roll is the list of voters who are registered to vote at an election. compulsory preferences - a requirement that a voter must rank all candidates on the ballot paper under a system of preferential voting. Electoral system - The electoral system is the set of rules which specifies how elections are organized and how votes are cast and counted at an election. The broad category of electoral system used to elect members at an election is shown in the database, and the entries are indexed in this database under the name of each electoral system. Australia has been adventurous in its experimentation with electoral rules and electoral law. It is planned to add more information on Australian electoral rules to the database. first past the post - A first past the post electoral system is one in which a voter is required to mark the ballot paper, usually with a cross or tick, indicating the voter's preferred candidate. The winning candidate is the one with the most votes. In electoral contests where there are only two candidates, the candidate with the most votes will have a majority (that is, more than 50 percent of the votes cast). If there are more than two candidates, the candidate with the most votes may only have a plurality (that is, more than any other candidate, but less that 50 percent of the votes cast). For this reason, first past the post voting is sometimes called plurality voting and is indicated in this database as 'first past the post (plurality) voting'. First past the post electoral systems were widely used in Australia until the rise of the Australian Labor Party prompted anti-Labor parties after 1910 to adopt preferential voting for most lower house elections in Australia. First past the post electoral systems are usually associated with single member districts, but they can also be used in multimember districts. The use of plurality voting with multimember districts is often called 'block voting'; the voter is given as many votes as there are candidates to be elected from the district. Such a system favours well organized party tickets and a successful party can win all the seats in a multimember district with a plurality of votes. This system was used for the Commonwealth Senate until 1919. Plurality voting can also be used in multimember districts by giving the voters as many ballots as there are candidates to be elected from the district. This enables voters to vote for several candidates or to cast more than one ballot for their favoured candidate (see also ballots). first preference vote - Preferential voting requires a voter to rank candidates on the ballot paper in the order of the voter's choice. A voter's most preferred candidate is the one against whose name the voter has written '1' on the ballot paper. This candidate represents the voter's first preference vote. This definition also applies to voting under systems of proportional representation. Where a first past the post (plurality) electoral system is used, the first preference vote refers to the number of ticks or crosses gained by each candidate. Change from previous election (Swing) The change in first preference vote won by a party at a given election when compared with the previous election, expressed as the difference between the percentage first preference vote shares. Note that the party must be listed in the database for both elections (see listed party) for a figure to appear in the column. If the party was a listed party in the previous election but ran candidates under a difference name, no figure for changed vote share will appear (see party name). Turnout - The turnout at at election is the proportion of voters on the electoral roll (registered voters) who cast a vote. In this database, turnout is measured as the rate of voting in contested seats, shown as a percentage of registered voters. Registration of voters - Registration (enrolment) as a voter is now compulsory for all Australian parliamentary elections (note the partial exception of South Australia, below). With minor qualifications for length of residence and variations for some state and territory elections, all eligible Australian citizens are required to be registered as voters. Comprehensive voter registration can be achieved by surveying households, and by requiring state agencies which compile lists of names and addresses to provided these lists to electoral authorities. For commentary on the context of compulsory registration, see David M Farrell and Ian McAllister, The Australian Electoral System: Origins, Variations and Consequences, pp 121-124 (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 2006, ISBN 0868408581). History Compulsory enrolment was introduced for Victorian lower house elections in 1930. Election dates for the Tasmanian elections are: 20 April 1892, 20 September 1894, 14 October 1897, 1 November 1900, 1 October 1902, 1 June 1904, 14 April 1907, 29 December 1908, 16 November 1911, 26 November 1914, 15 November 1917, 21 October 1920, 30 August 1921, 26 June 1924, 9 April 1927, 30 November 1929, 14 May 1932, 2 March 1935, 2 October 1937, 15 March 1940, 12 June 1943, 10 November 1945, 8 November 1947, 13 May 1950, 5 December 1952, 28 May 1955, 31 May 1958, 15 July 1961, 27 June 1964, 29 April 1967, 30 May 1970, 19 May 1973, 20 March 1976, 5 May 1979, 3 April 1982, 2 March 1985, 1 October 1988, 3 October 1992, 30 March 1996, 18 September 1999, 30 November 2002, 25 November 2006. November 1982, 7 December 1985, 25 November 1989, 11 December 1993, 11 October 1997, 9 February 2002, 18 March 2006.

This study is part of a time-series collection of national surveys fielded continuously since 1952. The election studies are designed to present data on Americans' social backgrounds, enduring political predispositions, social and political values, perceptions and evaluations of groups and candidates, opinions on questions of public policy, and participation in political life. This collection consists of a distinct panel across the three election waves, the cross-section samples associated with each election study, and a vote validation study. The panel component consists of a maximum of five interview points for each respondent (pre- and post-1972 election, post-1974 election, and pre- and post-1976 election) taken from the American National Election Studies of 1972 (ICPSR 7010), 1974 (ICPSR 7355), and 1976 (ICPSR 7381). The vote validation data were gathered in the spring and summer of 1977, through interviews with election registration officials and from examination of voting records of the respondents participating in these election studies. The collection also includes filter variables that allow for the retrieval of each of the distinct panel and cross-section samples. face-to-face interview; self-enumerated questionnaire; telephone interviewA total of 11 respondents who were "panel only" in the original 1976 cross-section study (AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION SERIES: 1972, 1974, 1976 [ICPSR 7381]) were corrected to "panel and cross section" in this data collection. Consequently, the frequency distribution for certain variables will differ slightly between the 1976 cross-section study and this version of the data.The codebook frequencies pertain to the 1972-1974-1976 Panel. Vote validation frequencies were generated using V764008 as a weight and filter.The variable breakdown by year is as follows: 720001-721112 are 1972 variables, 742001-742603 are 1974 variables, 763001-763969 are 1976 variables, 764001-764011 are cross-year variables, 765001-765073 are individual voter record variables from the 1976 vote validation study, 765101-765342 are election administration variables from the 1976 Vote Validation Study, and 765401-765417 are election items checklist variables from the 1976 Vote Validation Study.The SAS transport file was created using the SAS CPORT procedure. The data collection is a cross-section representative of persons 18 years of age or older as of November 7, 1972, who were living in private households in the coterminous United States. All citizens of voting age residing in households in the coterminous United States. Datasets: DS1: American National Election Series: 1972, 1974, 1976

This survey provides data on labor force activity for the week prior to the survey. Comprehensive data are available on the employment status, occupation, and industry of persons 15 years and over. Personal characteristics such as age, sex, race, marital status, veteran status, household relationship, educational background, and Hispanic origin are also provided. Questions unique to this supplement pertain to citizenship, voting status, and registration status and were asked of household members who were United States citizens and 18 years of age and older. (Source: downloaded from ICPSR 7/13/10)

Please Note: This dataset is part of the historical CISER Data Archive Collection and is also available at ICPSR at https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02803.v1. We highly recommend using the ICPSR version as they may make this dataset available in multiple data formats in the future.

In the United States presidential election of November 2000, approximately 180,000 ballots in Florida's 67 counties were uncertified because they failed to register a "valid" vote for president. These ballots included those in which no vote was recorded (undervotes) and those in which people voted for more than one candidate (overvotes). The 2000 Florida Ballots Project examined the undervotes and overvotes. The goal of the project was not to declare a "winner," but rather to carefully examine the ballots to assess the relative reliability of the three major types of ballot systems used in Florida. The results of this assessment may help state legislatures, other decision-makers, and developers of ballot systems to work toward more reliable ballot systems in the future. This collection contains seven separate data sets. The first data set is the "Raw Data File" which contains one record for each ballot examined. In addition to ballot information, each record includes county name, FIPS code, ballot system and other identifying information. The unique identifier for each record is recorded in the variable BALNUM, and can be used to link the data sets. The second data set is the "Aligned Data File." This data set matches the Raw Data File with the exception of the variables associated with the candidates. All chad-level data (including chads that represent a particular candidate) are presented in the raw file. In the aligned data file, only those data that apply to candidate chads are included - data from three coding systems are contained in the same variable for each candidate. The third data set is the "Recode Data File." At random intervals, after coding a group of ballots, the coders were instructed to recode the same ballots as a check on intra-coder reliability (or consistency within a coder). These second codings are contained in the recode data file. The difference between variables in the recode data and file and the aligned data file is variables with the suffix C1, C2, or C3 in the aligned data has R1, R2, and R3, respectively, in the recode data. The fourth data file is the "Comment Data File." The comments data file is a ballot-level file containing all comments made by coders during the coding of ballots. The data file contains one record for each ballot for which at least one of the three coders recorded a comment; 5,407 ballots had at least one coder comment and are contained in this file. The fifth data file is the "Coder Demographic Data File." The Coder Demographic data file contains the results of a questionnaire given to each coder employed by NORC for the Florida Ballots Project. This file contains one record for each coder and includes information such as the sex, marital status, age, income level, ethnicity, and political affiliation of each coder. The ID field contains the identification number of the coder which can be used as a link to the raw and aligned data files. The sixth and seventh data sets are the "Orange County Raw Data File" and "Orange County Aligned Data File." These two data sets are identical to the structures of the raw and aligned data files, respectively. Each file has 417 records. These data files are being made available because the 966 undervotes and 1,383 overvotes reported by Orange County on election day (that ultimately informed the tally of certified totals) could not be segregated by county officials responsible for producing the ballots for NORC review. The NORC coders were initially shown only 640 undervotes and 1,197 overvotes. At the time of initial coding, more than 400 of the ballots rejected by machines on election day simply could not be distinguished from ballots that were accepted and certified on election day.

This data collection is comprised of responses from two sets of survey questionnaires, the basic Current Population Survey (CPS) and a survey on the topic of voting and registration in the United States, which was administered as a supplement to the November 2002 CPS questionnaire.The CPS, administered monthly, is a labor force survey providing current estimates of the economic status and activities of the population of the United States age 15 years or older. Specifically, the CPS provides estimates of total employment (both farm and nonfarm), nonfarm self-employed persons, domestics, and unpaid helpers in nonfarm family enterprises, wage and salaried employees, and estimates of total unemployment. Data from the CPS are provided for the week prior to the survey.The Voting and Registration supplement data are collected every two years to monitor trends in the voting and nonvoting behavior of United States citizens in terms of their different demographic and economic characteristics. The supplement was designed to be a proxy response supplement, meaning a single respondent could provide answers for all eligible household members. The supplement questions were asked of all persons who were both United States citizens and 18 years or older. The CPS instrument determined who was eligible for the voting and registration supplement through the use of check items that referred to basic CPS items, including age and citizenship.Questions unique to the Voting and Registration supplement pertain to citizenship status, whether respondents were registered to vote in the most recent election, main reasons for not being registered to vote, main reasons for not voting, whether they voted in person or by mail, and method used to register to vote. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, Hispanic origin, marital status, veteran status, educational attainment, occupation, and income.

The downloadable ZIP file contains Esri shapefiles and PDF maps. Contains the information used to determine the location of the new legislative and congressional district boundaries for the state of Idaho as adopted by Idaho's first Commission on Redistricting on March 9, 2002. Contains viewable and printable legislative and congressional district maps, viewable and printable reports, and importable geographic data files.These data were contributed to INSIDE Idaho at the University of Idaho Library in 2001. CD/DVD -ROM availability: https://alliance-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/m1uotc/CP71156191150001451These files were created by a six-person, by-partisan commission, consisting of six commission members, three democrats and three republicans. This commission was given 90 days to redraw congressional and legislative district boundaries for the state of Idaho. Due to lawsuits, the process was extended. This legislative plan was approved by the commission on March 9th, 2002 and was previously called L97. All digital data originates from TIGER/Line files and 2000 U.S. Census data.Frequently asked questions:How often are Idaho's legislative and congressional districts redrawn? Once every ten years after each census, as required by law, or when directed by the Idaho Supreme Court. The most recent redistricting followed the 2000 census. Redistricting is not expected to occur again in Idaho until after the 2010 census. Who redrew Idaho's legislative and congressional districts? In 2001, for the first time, Idaho used a citizens' commission to redraw its legislative and congressional district boundaries. Before Idaho voters amended the state Constitution in 1994 to create a Redistricting Commission, redistricting was done by a committee of the Idaho Legislature. The committee's new district plans then had to pass the Legislature before becoming law. Who was on the Redistricting Commission? Idaho's first Commission on Redistricting was composed of Co-Chairmen Kristi Sellers of Chubbuck and Tom Stuart of Boise and Stanley. The other four members were Raymond Givens of Coeur d'Alene, Dean Haagenson of Hayden Lake, Karl Shurtliff of Boise, John Hepworth of Buhl (who resigned effective December 4, 2001), and Derlin Taylor of Burley (who was appointed to replace Mr. Hepworth). What are the requirements for being a Redistricting Commissioner? According to Idaho Law, no person may serve on the commission who: 1. Is not a registered voter of the state at the time of selection; or 2. Is or has been within one (1) year a registered lobbyist; or 3. Is or has been within two (2) years prior to selection an elected official or elected legislative district, county or state party officer. (This requirement does not apply to precinct committeepersons.) The individual appointing authorities may consider additional criteria beyond these statutory requirements. Idaho law also prohibits a person who has served on the Redistricting Commission from serving in either house of the legislature for five years following their service on the commission. When did Idaho's first Commission on Redistricting meet? Idaho law allows the Commission only 90 days to conduct its business. The Redistricting Commission was formed on June 5, 2001. Its 90-day time period would expire on September 3, 2001. After holding hearings around the state in June and July, a majority of the Commission voted to adopt new legislative and congressional districts on August 22, 2001. On November 29th, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled the Commission's legislative redistricting plan unconstitutional and directed them to reconvene and adopt an alternative plan. The Commission did so, adopting a new plan on January 8, 2000. The Idaho Supreme Court found the Commission's second legislative map unconstitutional on March 1, 2002 and ordered the Commission to try again. The Commission adopted a third plan on March 9, 2002. The Supreme Court denied numerous challenges to this third map. It then became the basis for the 2002 primary and General elections and is expected to be used until the 2012 elections. What is the basic timetable for Idaho to redraw its legislative and congressional districts?Typically, and according to Idaho law, the Redistricting Commission cannot be formally convened until after Idaho has received the official census counts and not before June 1 of a year ending in one. Idaho's first Commission on redistricting was officially created on June 5, 2001. By law, a Commission then has 90 days (or until September 3, 2001 in the case of Idaho's first Commission) to approve new legislative and congressional district boundaries based on the most recent census figures. If at least four of the six commissioners fail to approve new legislative and congressional district plans before that 90-day time period expires, the Commission will cease to exist. The law is silent as to what happens next. Could you summarize the important dates for Idaho's first Commission on Redistricting one more time please? After January 1, 2001 but before April 1, 2001: As required by federal law, the Census Bureau must deliver to the states the small area population counts upon which redistricting is based. The Census Bureau determines the exact date within this window when Idaho will get its population figures. Idaho's were delivered on March 23, 2001. Why conduct a census anyway? The original and still primary reason for conducting a national census every ten years is to determine how the 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives are to be apportioned among the 50 states. Each state receives its share of the 435 seats in the U.S. House based on the proportion of its population to that of the total U.S. population. For example, the population shifts during the 1990's resulted in the Northeastern states losing population and therefore seats in Congress to the Southern and the Western states. What is reapportionment? Reapportionment is a federal issue that applies only to Congress. It is the process of dividing up the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the 50 states based on each state's proportion of the total U.S. population as determined by the most recent census. Apportionment determines the each state's power, as expressed by the size of their congressional delegation, in Congress and, through the electoral college, directly affects the selection of the president (each state's number of votes in the electoral college equals the number of its representatives and senators in Congress). Like all states, Idaho has two U.S. senators. Based on our 1990 population of 1,006,000 people and our 2000 population of 1,293,953, and relative to the populations of the other 49 states, Idaho will have two seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Even with the state's 28.5% population increase from 1990 to 2000, Idaho will not be getting a third seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Assuming Idaho keeps growing at the same rate it did through the decade of the 1990's, it will likely be 30 or 40 years (after 3 or 4 more censuses) before Idaho gets a third congressional seat. What is redistricting? Redistricting is the process of redrawing the boundaries of legislative and congressional districts within each state to achieve population equality among all congressional districts and among all legislative districts. The U.S. Constitution requires this be done for all congressional districts after each decennial census. The Idaho Constitution also requires that this be done for all legislative districts after each census. The democratic principle behind redistricting is "one person, one vote." Requiring that districts be of equal population ensures that every elected state legislator or U.S. congressman represents very close to the same number of people in that state, therefore, each citizen's vote will carry the same weight. How are reapportionment and redistricting related to the census? The original and still primary reason for conducting a census every ten years is to apportion the (now) 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the several states. The census records population changes and is the legally recognized basis for redrawing electoral districts of equal population. Why is redistricting so important? In a democracy, it is important for all citizens to have equal representation. The political parties also see redistricting as an opportunity to draw districts that favor electing their members and, conversely, that are unfavorable for electing their political opposition. (It's for this reason that redistricting has been described as "the purest form of political bloodsport.") What is PL 94-171? Public Law (PL) 94-171 (Title 13, United States Code) was enacted by Congress in 1975. It was intended to provide state legislatures with small-area census population totals for use in redistricting. The law's origins lie with the "one person, one vote" court decisions in the 1960's. State legislatures needed to reconcile Census Bureau's small geographic area boundaries with voting tabulation districts (precincts) boundaries to create legislative districts with balanced populations. The Census Bureau worked with state legislatures and others to meet this need beginning with the 1980 census. The resulting Public Law 94-171 allows states to work voluntarily with the Census Bureau to match voting district boundaries with small-area census boundaries. With this done, the Bureau can report to those participating states the census population totals broken down by major race group and Hispanic origin for the total population and for persons aged 18 years and older for each census subdivision. Idaho participated in the Bureau's Census 2000 Redistricting Data Program and, where counties used visible features to delineate precinct boundaries, matched those boundaries with census reporting areas. In those instances where counties did not use visible features to

The Detroit Arab American Study (DAAS), 2003, a companion survey to the 2003 Detroit Area Study (DAS), using a representative sample (DAS, n = 500) drawn from the three-county Detroit metropolitan area and an oversample of Arab Americans (DAAS, n = 1000) from the same region, provides a unique dataset on September 11, 2001, and its impacts on Arab Americans living in the Detroit metropolitan area. The data contain respondent information concerning opinions on their experiences since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, social trust, confidence in institutions, intercultural relationships, local social capital, attachments to transnational communities, respondent characteristics, and community needs. Examples of the issues addressed in the data include frequency of religious participation, level of political activism, level of interaction with people outside of their cultural, racial, and ethnic groups, and the quality of the social and political institutions in their area. Background information includes birth country, citizenship status, citizenship status of spouse, education, home ownership status, household income, language spoken in the home (if not English), marital status, number of children (under 18) in the household, parents' countries of birth and citizenship status, political affiliation, total number of people living in the household, voter registration status, whether the respondent ever served in the United States Armed Forces, and year of immigration, if not born in the United States. More information about the Detroit Area Studies Project is available on this Web site.