On safari in the research world

An aspiring voting rights advocate explores quantitative research and cognitive science

Today’s guest poster from the Electoral Innovation Lab is Hayden Goldberg. The day before he arrived in Princeton, Hayden graduated from the University of Washington, where he earned his B.A. in Political Science and Economics. Out of the Seattle frying pan, into the New Jersey fire!

Hayden’s been working on multiple projects, including helping grade redistricting plans around the country, looking at ranked-choice voting data, and a scholarly dive into several voting-rights lawsuits. To borrow from my roots in physics, Hayden has the highest resonant frequency of anyone here!

-Sam

Hayden also rows!

Upon arriving in Princeton, I hit the ground running with a law article on the format of New Jersey's primary ballots, which are unlike any other in the nation. Instead of listing candidates together by office, they are usually spread out all over the page except for one column or row of party-endorsed candidates. Additionally, candidates in that column or row can share a slogan. These favored candidates are said to be “bracketed” on the "county line."

Such a format may be unconstitutional because it violates principles of equal representation and freedom of association. Drawing upon Sam's expertise in neuroscience and statistics, we note that the human brain tends to take cognitive shortcuts to reduce mental load. Like the misdirection by a magician or street hustler, the whitespace and the visually prominent county line subconsciously guide voters towards selecting the bracketed candidates.

We have done original statistical analysis using sources like a report by New Jersey Policy Perspective. Our writeup is forthcoming in the Seton Hall Law Review. We find that candidates on the line get an average advantage of over 30 percentage points. Even compared with a conventional partisan endorsement, the advantage of the county line is an additional 17 points on average. No incumbent on the county line has lost a primary for decades.

Outcomes of incumbent re-nomination races in state legislative races. Virginia, which like New Jersey has its legislative elections in odd-numbered years, is shown for added comparison.

This means that the local county committee has all the power - and voters have no say. Based on this statistical evidence and on the cognitive science, we suggest a three-part test for judges to determine when a ballot’s design has gone too far in manipulating voter choice: (a) misleading design, (b) a statistically significant effect, and (c) an effect larger than ordinary, incidental effects of ballot design.

The advantage of being on the county line in 2020 federal elections in New Jersey. The horizontal axis represents a candidate’s vote share when not on the county line, and the vertical axis shows the vote share when on the line. The diagonal line represents equality. All ten candidates received a higher voter share if they were on the county line than if they were not.

As someone aspiring to build a career in voting rights litigation, I found this project to be immensely rewarding. Plus I got a big dose of the law review style of footnoting. (Hello Bluebook, my new friend!)

The lab environment at EIL fosters a collaborative atmosphere between mentors, researchers, and fellow interns. After the New Jersey business, I hopped onto a project alongside Noah, Grace, and Ethan to draft a guide to redistricting reform in Ohio. In 2021, protracted litigation led to a partisan map that, thanks to a loophole written into the state constitution, state courts were powerless to redraw. Leveraging insights that Noah acquired in Ohio last month, we are exploring ways to improve the Ohio redistricting process in the future. My task is to dive into current legal and constitutional limitations, in advance of possible reforms in 2024 and beyond.

In addition to the vibrant lab environment, EIL has organized captivating guest speaker sessions. These sessions have granted me the incredible opportunity to pick the brains of experts. I regularly hear about their work, and gain insights into their approaches to redistricting, voting rights, and voting rules. The knowledge and experiences shared by these speakers have been truly enriching, reminding me of the immense value in learning from others.

There is one moment I'll remember: Several of us gathered in a circle with our laptops, eagerly awaiting the Moore v. Harper decision. As we scrolled down to read the ruling and significant quotes aloud, I could not help but feel a sense of immediacy that doesn’t happen in most of the academic world. Being on the front lines is exciting!

We’re fortunate to have this workshop on campus. While I may not pursue a Ph.D. (a recurring internal debate that I grapple with), I’ve learned a lot from EIL associates Jonathan Cervas and Keena Lipsitz. I hope my future work will continue their spirit of combining rigorous research with near-term relevance.