COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF IMPLEMENTING AN ONLINE VOTER

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF IMPLEMENTING AN ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION SYSTEM IN WISCONSIN Prepared for the Government Accountability Board by: Iseul Choi Joe Dvorak Steven Kulig Katie Lorenze Amanda Wilmarth

INTRODUCTION Since 2002, 13 states have implemented an online voter registration system (OVRS) Currently under debate in Wisconsin Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 (ASA 1) to Assembly Bill 225 (AB 225) Current policy In person at clerk’s office Registration by mail My Vote Wisconsin (partial OVRS) Election Day registration

COSTS Costs for the GAB and DOT total $1. 42 million: Implementation and maintenance Personnel costs Upgrading and purchasing hardware/software Training existing clerks and poll workers Public advertising & outreach campaign Unable to empirically link usage to advertising Developed four different models Advertising costs based on implementing photo ID No advertising costs with no usage delay One year usage delay Two year usage delay

BENEFITS Driven by usage Time cost reductions Lower material costs Labor reductions Local governments realize 70 percent of all cost savings

NET BENEFITS Advertising based on photo ID budget: $372, 000 No advertising budget/no usage delay: $1. 01 million No advertising budget/one year usage delay: $525, 000 No advertising budget/two year usage delay: $124, 000

METHODOLOGY Election Assistance Commission Biennial Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS) administered to the states Survey to county and municipal clerks GAB and DOT fiscal cost estimates Statistical analysis and Monte Carlo sensitivity

LIMITATIONS Election Assistance Commission Data Clerk survey results Cost and benefits not monetized

CONCLUSIONS We recommend GAB support the adoption of OVRS Usage drives benefits

DETERMINING OVRS USAGE

DETERMINING OVRS USAGE Program Year Coefficient Year^2 Coefficient Constant Coefficient Percent OVRS Usage Value 1* (0. 0033) 0. 0041 0. 0936 9. 45 2 (0. 0065) 0. 0165 0. 0936 10. 36 3 (0. 0098) 0. 0370 0. 0936 12. 09 4 (0. 0130) 0. 0658 0. 0936 14. 65 5 (0. 0163) 0. 1029 0. 0936 18. 03 6 (0. 0195) 0. 1481 0. 0936 22. 23 7 (0. 0228) 0. 2016 0. 0936 27. 25 8 (0. 0260) 0. 2634 0. 0936 33. 10 9 (0. 0293) 0. 3333 0. 0936 39. 77 10 (0. 0325) 0. 4115 0. 0936 47. 27 Range: Low Range: High 1. 78 16. 61 3. 20 17. 52 4. 94 19. 25 7. 49 21. 80 10. 87 25. 18 15. 07 29. 38 20. 10 34. 41 25. 95 40. 26 32. 62 46. 93 40. 11 54. 42

DETERMINING OVRS USAGE Expected OVRS Use as a Percentage of All Registration Activity 60 54, 42 Percentage of Registration Activity 50 46, 93 40, 26 40, 11 40 34, 41 30 25, 95 25, 18 21, 80 20 32, 62 29, 38 16, 61 17, 52 20, 10 19, 25 15, 07 10, 87 7, 49 10 1, 78 3, 20 4, 94 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Program Year Lower Bound Upper Bound 7 8 9 10

MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS Original Model: mean NPV of $372, 000. � Range $-155, 000 – 912, 000 � 99. 8% positive results

MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS No Advertising; 1 Year usage delay � Mean NPV of $525, 000 � Range $41, 000 – 1 million No Advertising; 2 Year usage delay Mean NPV of $124, 000 Range -$257, 000 – 588, 000 87% positive results No Advertising; no usage delay Mean NPV of $1. 01 million** Range $489, 000 – 1. 57 million