Designing ballot cure forms that invite voters to act
Hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots can be rejected because of mistakes, such as mismatched or missing signatures. Voters are often notified by their local elections office, but are they actually taking action?
Through this first-of-its-kind project, alongside the Center for Civic Design, I led research efforts, and tested a variety of existing and developed Cure Forms with voters, while also learning what motivates them to take action.
The cure process needs some attention
Before the 2020 General Election, 17 states already had a process for voters to fix problems on their mail-in ballots. Many more have added one as so many people switched to voting by mail during the pandemic. But even in states with where voters have the opportunity, too many ballots are rejected for missing signatures or other information on the envelope.
We wanted to know why.
Each state has its own laws about what is allowed and how voters can update their ballot envelope so it can be counted. Voters can be informed by a phone call, a letter, or a text in some cases. Options for taking action include mailing, faxing, or emailing a form back to the election office, or coming to the office in person.
Is taking advantage of this opportunity simply an inconvenience? Is it because the voters most likely to make a mistake are already less engaged? Or do the letters and forms not help voters understand their options?
We decided to see what works and what doesn’t work with the current cure letters and forms. We tested a variety of form types with different communication and design styles, we began to see how voters perceive these forms and learn what motivated them to take action.
Here are 4 important things we learned.
Make it trustworthy
The first action a voter takes is to identify whether the communication 1) came from the election office and 2) is authentic. Adding a few universally recognizable elements to the form helps voters can know it is coming from a trusted, legitimate source. Including contact information for the election office also allowed for the form to feel more official.
Make it clear, avoiding jargon.
In addition to making the form trustworthy, voters have to understand what it tells them. Participants in our testing had strong, negative reactions to the word ‘cure,’ saying they had a hard time understanding how that concept applied to their ballots. When a word is interpreted with a negative meaning, it can be demotivating, as though voters are being told their ballot is sick.
This also comes into play with phrases that are out of the everyday lexicon or understanding. Be as clear as possible to avoid confusion.
Make it have a clear call to action
Finally, the letter and form need to provide a clear call-to-action to encourage voters to take the steps to cure their ballot.
Provide urgency in your opening statement without making them feel like they’re in trouble or they did something wrong. As an example, participants reacted well to “Help us count your ballot”.
Digital curing options, like email and mobile, will also allow more voters to access and feel motivated to fix their ballot, especially when deadlines are tight and for younger voters.
Make the dates transparent.
Tight deadlines can make the curing process hard or impossible, which can frustrate voters. Consider adding a date stamp on the form, not only help the voter but, to provide accountability for the election office. In addition, give them clear, attainable deadlines so they feel they have a realistic time to act.
This became quite apparent when participants considered the third testing scenario, receiving the form two days after the election – on Nov 5.
Putting it all together
Based on what we learned, we created a simple mockup based on the aspects that the participants said were important. Use this as a checklist for your form to provide information voters need and, in turn, increase the overall response rate.
Use the header to make it trustworthy
State or county seal or election logo (in color)
Contact information
Include phone #, email, website
Point of contact name
(in header or closing)Date sent
Explain the problem clearly
Friendly, yet urgent first sentence
Specific reason for receiving form
Voter personalized address
Clear, feasible deadlines
Tell them how to take action
Multiple convenient options for ‘curing’
Include mobile and email
Bullet points or Steps
Provide office address and hour
Show them where to sign
Legal statement when necessary
Area for signature, marked with an ‘x’
Clear areas for dates or other information
Full research presentation
About this research
We spoke with 8 participants from all over the US. We created three scenarios for different time frames in which a voter might receive a cure notice:
Scenario 1: Let’s say you voted by mail three weeks early. One week later, you received something like this in the mail.
Scenario 2: Say you still voted by mail about a week before the election but you received something like this in the mail a few days later on Thu, Oct 29.
Scenario 3: Say you still voted by mail, but you received something like this in the mail on Thu Nov 5, two days after the election.
For each scenario, participants viewed a packet of different variations of cure forms, with pages in randomized order.
The forms were based on a sample of real election materials using different styles. We replaced all identifying information with a fictitious location to prevent any inherent participant bias towards different places.
Resources
An invitation to certainty, in an uncertain time – Communication tips for helping voters cure a problem with their write-in or absentee ballot.
Download a sample of a letter or email, phone script, or text message to customize
Toolkit for resources for scaling-up vote by mail
Field Guide Vol. 05 – Choosing how to communicate with voters
Field Guide Vol. 09 – Creating forms that help voters take action