Voter Registration Totals By State

[phrigndumass]

Below are the latest-reported total voters registered by state, and how it compares to 2004. This data is culled from each state's website for Secretary of State and/or Division of Elections. It's been a long, tedious process to gather this data :D

However, some of this data is months old, so if anyone runs across an updated figure for a state, please post it here! By helping in this way, you can help us keep track of everything with more accuracy on election night, which is only 27 days away!

Thanks as always!

And, I have no idea why California's total registered voters dropped nearly 10% since 2004. I'm just the messenger ...





.

[skipos]

1. Any info on how many of those are registered Dems and Reps?

It is interesting to see so many of the states that Obama has targeted with BIG numbers.

[KathieG]

4. I'd be interested in seeing that breakdown as well

[phrigndumass]

8. I don't have that detail, but I'm sure some of the states are reporting it

I've seen articles mentioning the big increases for Democrats and only moderate increases for republicans. But not all states require party affiliation data for general elections when registering to vote.

:hi:

edited for spelling :dunce:

[Juche]

17. In 28 states, 2.1 million dems registered since 2006, 344k GOP left the party.

These numbers are only from 2006-early September of 2008. Only 28 states register by party ID, the other 22 do not. When you overlay it with party ID, the democrats are looking good this time around, and 2006 was probably just the beginning (2006,08,10 will be historical elections). Consider how well the democratic party did in 2006 (31 house, 6 senate seats), then compare that with higher turnout in 2008, Obama's coattails, the increase in party ID for democrats vs GOP in 2006 vs 2008 and the higher democratic voter registration (probably 4 million democratic registrants vs a possible net loss for the GOP).

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/06/politics/main4422449.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4422449

Party Registration By State

Since 2006, the Democrats have added 2.1 million voters in the 28 states that registered voters by party affiliation in both 2006 and today. The Republicans have lost nearly 344,000 voters in the same states. The number of registered voters in each party, the percent change since 2006:

State Dem Change GOP Change
Ala. na na na na
Alaska 73,446 9.3% 120,611 3.7%
Ariz. 1,090,484 7.9% 1,207,993 2.7%
Ark. na na na na
Calif. 7,053,860 4.8% 5,244,394 -3.5%
Colo. 946,277 5.5% 1,024,504 -4.0%
Conn. 707,885 0.4% 408,376 -5.7%
Del. 264,167 7.3% 179,470 0.5%
D.C. 290,931 -0.2% 29,220 -5.7%
Fla. 4,389,698 4.0% 3,924,081 -0.3%
Ga. na na na na
Hawaii na na na na
Idaho na na na na
Ill. na na na na
Ind. na na na na
Iowa 713,656 12.8% 618,731 1.5%
Kan. 449,058 1.6% 741,786 -2.9%
Ky. 1,647,140 4.4% 1,043,331 3.2%
La. 1,525,915 -1.9% 722,420 1.9%
Maine 318,807 3.0% 274,189 -2.0%
Md. 1,804,106 4.1% 901,347 -0.9%
Mass. 1,476,133 0.2% 486,188 -2.6%
Mich. na na na na
Minn. na na na na
Miss. na na na na
Mo. na na na na
Mont. na na na na
Neb. 372,864 0.6% 550,581 -3.9%
Nev. 564,885 14.3% 489,396 1.3%
N.H. 264,122 19.2% 269,119 5.0%
N.J. 1,682,352 46.3% 1,030,142 15.7%
N.M. 543,615 1.0% 354,272 -1.3%
N.Y. 5,438,800 -1.3% 2,995,982 -4.3%
N.C. 2,656,706 6.7% 1,936,584 1.9%
N.D. na na na na
Ohio na na na na
Okla. 1,025,611 -1.6% 806,943 0.5%
Ore. 869,538 13.3% 676,895 -4.2%
Pa. 4,275,524 9.6% 3,184,081 -3.5%
R.I. 277,961 na 75,480 na
S.C. na na na na
S.D. 197,575 3.5% 236,232 -1.6%
Tenn. na na na na
Texas na na na na
Utah 119,759 na 581,173 na
Vt. na na na na
Va. na na na na
Wash. na na na na
W.Va. 665,234 2.5% 347,760 1.4%
Wis. na na na na
Wyo. 70,363 4.6% 155,912 -4.3%
Nation 41,776,472 5.3% 30,617,193 -1.1%

[phrigndumass]

20. Thank you! Great information!

:yourock: :woohoo:

[JCMach1]

26. Shhhh, don't tell anyone-- smells like

L-A-N-D-S-L-I-D-E

[PeaceNikki]

29. Many states (like mine) don't require you declare

[weezie1317]

2. Holy crap!!! That puts basically every state in play -- well except Arizona and Alaska.

[napi21]

3. I find it interesting that AZ. shows a loss. I would have thought

a lot more people there would WANT to vote because of McNuts being a candidate. Hmmmm....

[phrigndumass]

10. I wonder if scrubbing has taken place there?

:shrug:

[DesertRat]

32. Arizona received 42,000 registrations on Oct. 6 deadline

Brewer says her office collected nearly 42,000 registrations on Oct. 6, the deadline for registering in time to vote in the Nov. 4 election.

That tally includes forms dropped off at Brewer's office and registrations submitted online. It does not include registrations submitted to individual counties.

Brewer says the nearly 39,000 online registrations compares with the previous single-day online registration record of more than 21,000 in October 2004.

Brewer says Arizonans appear to be "highly motivated and energized to participate."

http://www.azcapitoltimes.com/story.cfm?id=9621

[otohara]

37. It's Amazing How Many Wait Until The Last Minute

same thing here in CO - stacks of new applications. It worries me that people wanting mail in ballots will not get them, they will still be imputing new voters - it's a Tsunami.

[occe]

5. Good news

Thats good news, I guess WY is out of reach for Obama now. MN we should win, OR is a lock (i think?), CA is a lock . I am happy with the rest :P

[annabanana]

6. I wonder how many have already been purged?

NY Times article claims some states have removed two voters for each one added...(serious stuff)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/us/politics/09voting.html?pagewanted=1&hp

[phrigndumass]

12. Your link mentions CO, IN, MI, NV, NC and OH

Thanks for that link, annabanana! I wonder if those states would have had a larger increase, then?

:hi:

[annabanana]

13. I'm not sure your figures include the purges...

just sayin'

[phrigndumass]

15. If that's the case, then each state isn't reporting them :)

The data was pulled from each state's SOS/Elections website. If they haven't included the purges yet, at least we'll have a "before" picture to compare it to :D

:hi:

[stillcool]

19. Here's a link to newspapers..

http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/

Maybe we could send this story to all the newspapers in those states?

[Aloha Spirit]

7. Regarding voter loss- Possibly because of the Help America Vote Act...

Just read about it in the ny times voter purges piece,
The HAVA established guidelines for updating local voter rolls to electronic databases, and during that transition presumably, many bad registrations were dropped ( duplicate, deceased, moved...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_America_Vote_Act
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/us/politics/09voting.html?pagewanted=print

edit, the HAVA was signed in late 2002.

[phrigndumass]

14. True ... if the purges are still taking place, at least we have a "before" picture now

It'll be interesting to see if any states decrease their voter rolls between this data and election day.

:hi:

[tekisui]

9. Things have deteriorated since 2004, nation wide.

I would bet that the majority of those registered are Democratic voters. That really does change the predictability of the race. Now, to see how many of those make it to the polls.

Good evening to you! :toast:

[Captain Hilts]

11. I wish just half of them had voted in 2004. nt

[rainbow4321]

16. TX: 13.3 million people are registered— an all-time high

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/100408dnmetvoterregistration.d8cd7a2c.html


But I have issues with the newspaper. On their election page they list Real Clear Politics results but what state do they choose NOT to list--Texas. And what color is TX on the RCP map that THEY show--still bright red. When in reality if you go to RCP's website, mclame only has a 9 point lead...compare that to chimpass' 20+ point leads in 2000/2004. Guess they figure that people reading the DMN can't handle the truth that TX is no longer neon red.
So that is why I question their statement:

Statewide, about 13.3 million people are registered— an all-time high. But that’s only 200,000 more than were registered four years ago, or about 1.5 percent.

------
Especially when they threw in that Tarrant County elections office is getting 1,000 voter registration delivered to them EACH DAY by volunteer deputy registrars (from voter drives) in addition to thousands that people have mailed in on their own. So I can't help but think the paper is lowballing the new vote registration stats.

[phrigndumass]

22. Thanks for sharing that! It's definitely more up to date than March numbers

:yourock: :hi:

[MagickMuffin]

18. Texas numbers are going to be a lot higher, considering

your data is only listed as the month of March. I know in Tarrant County we have registered more than 40,000 since then, but I don't know the exact totals yet. Monday was our last day of registration, and Deputy Registrars had until yesterday @ 5:00 to turn in their applications. I think I read on DU someone saying that there were 1000 registrations a day here, however, I'm not sure if that is accurate.

Thanks once again for doing ALL the hard work.:applause:

If I run across my county's or the entire state's data, I'll pass it along.:pals:

[phrigndumass]

21. Thanks! You're right, the Texas data is six months old ...

I'm looking for updates and asking for everyone's help :D

Upthread is a link to a Dallas article showing 13.3 million voters in Texas registered.

:hi:

[vaberella]

23. I'm not surprised by the decrease in California considering the amount of foreclosures.

Highest rate apparently...so that's something to take into consideration.

[phrigndumass]

24. Wow, that's right

That whole "lose your home, lose your vote" thing is insanity! It would definitely affect California voter registrations.

:hi:

[vaberella]

25. Yup, I saw a post on DU with a vid where it said 60% of the lost homes were in Cali. n/t

[JCMach1]

27. One more note as this relates to polling-- most likely these voters

will NOT have made it on voter call lists for the pollsters.

New voters will not show up in the polls in most cases!

[phrigndumass]

28. Good point

:hi:

[Kukesa]

34. Excellent point. n/t

[underpants]

30. Frickin' IDAHO?!??!

:wow:

[fight4my3sons]

31. I'll try to get you something more recent for Maine.

:hi:

[phrigndumass]

33. Thanks :)

:yourock: :bounce:

[TornadoTN]

35. Tennessee with a 17.95% increase as of 6/1/08 - this is huge!

I can tell you that this bodes very well for us in this state - especially since a poll hasn't been conducted here since BEFORE the primaries were decided. Here in a typically reddish shade of the state, our local Democratic offices have registered a massive amount of new people - 99.9% voting for Obama.

The local Republican offices have conducted NO voter registration drives this cycle - NONE. They don't even have registration forms at their field offices or at candidate HQ's. They simply direct them to the county registration offices which is a major headache.

[grantcart]

36. The increases in Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Nevada

are too large to really comprehend.


I would assume that CA numbers dropped because of purging old registrations.

Too sustain a 40% increase in a large state like Indiana is mind numbing. The fact Indiana borders IL and there are so many IL volunteers that have been going across the state line to help is an ominous sign.

The relatively small increas in IL could be a sign that they were already registered for Obama's Senate seat.

I have mentioned it before: The real untold story of the campaign is what is happening in Indiana. If Obama wins Indiana by a single vote it will have been one of the greatest swings by a battleground state in history.

If he wins it by 5-6 points it will portend a political change in American history that will match what FDR did because he will not have simply won an election but established a new type of political machinery. The Republicans will be in full flight and grasping to maintain city council and state rep seats. Their national power base will be severly weakened.

On CNN Borgia made the point the other night after the debate that increased registrations do not mean that people will go out and vote, and that "in the past they have not done so".

That is both correct and incorrect. In the past large numbers of people who were registered by mass registration campaigns did not in fact bother to vote. Those registration campaigns were engineered by party operations that offered "bounties" to registrars to get a valid registration - typically $ 5. so the incentive was on the registrar. Obama has never used bounties for registrations and as a result the results of his work in IL changed the political landscape in IL forever.

As this article explains Obama's voter registration from 1993 was not about registration it was about getting the vote out

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-1993/Vote-of-Confidence/


In the final, climactic buildup to November's general election, with George Bush gaining ground on Bill Clinton in Illinois and the once-unstoppable campaign of senatorial candidate Carol Moseley Braun embroiled in allegations about her mother's Medicare liability, one of the most important local stories managed to go virtually unreported: The number of new voter registrations before the election hit an all-time high. And the majority of those new voters were black. More than 150,000 new African-American voters were added to the city's rolls. In fact, for the first time in Chicago's history-including the heyday of Harold Washington-voter registrations in the 19 predominantly black wards outnumbered those in the city's 19 predominantly white ethnic wards, 676,000 to 526,000.

The election, to some degree, turned on these totals: Braun and Clinton had almost unanimous support among blacks. But just as important, if less obvious, are the implications black votership could have for future city and state elections: For the first time in ten years, more than half a million blacks went to the polls in Chicago. And with gubernatorial and mayoral elections coming up in the next two years, it served notice to every¬one from Jim Edgar to Richard M. Daley that an African-American voting bloc would be a force to be reckoned with in those races.

None of this, of course, was accidental. The most effective minority voter registration drive in memory was the result of careful handiwork by Project Vote!, the local chapter of a not-for-profit national organization. "It was the most efficient campaign I have seen in my 20 years in politics," says Sam Burrell, alderman of the West Side's 29th Ward and a veteran of many registration drives.

At the head of this effort was a little-known 31-year-old African-American lawyer, community organizer, and writer: Barack Obama. The son of a black Kenyan political activist and a white American anthropologist, Obama was born in Hawaii, received a degree in political science and English literature from Columbia University, and, in 1990, became the first black editor of the Harvard Law Revi




To understand the full implications of Obama's effort, you first need to understand how voter registration often has worked in Chicago. The Regular Democratic Party spearheaded most drives, doing so using one primary motivator: money. The party would offer bounties to registrars for every new voter they signed up (typically a dollar per registration). The campaigns did produce new voters. "But bounty systems don't really promote participation," says David Orr, the Cook County clerk, whose office is responsible for voter registration efforts in the Cook County suburbs. "When the money dries up, the voters drop out." Nor did the Democratic Party always vigorously push registration among minorities, Orr says. "It's not that they discouraged it. They just never worked hard to ensure it would happen



The question now, of course, is what lasting impact Project Voters efforts will have on Chicago and Illinois politics. Joseph Gardner says it will be considerable. "In this town, numbers talk," he says. "Who can afford to ignore 600,000 voters?" He says he is confident turnout among black voters in Chicago will remain at nearly that level during future elections. "We tasted victory in November. It was intoxicating. We won't go back to being silent."

The ramifications of these numbers are too great to be held in a single post. This is not a picture of a statistical increase this is the birth of a new political machine. If the turnout holds based on these numbers this OP will turn out not to have been only the most significant post of the day, month or campaign but the most significant post of DU. If the numbers in this post reflect sizeable increases in Democratic registrations in the battleground states then the Democratic Underground isn't going to be Underground much longer.

One additional thought: These numbers are still preliminary - the last big thrust in the key states will not be known for 2 more weeks as the local SOS catch up. Can you give reformat with only the swing or contested states in a table? Then can we ge an update based on the swing states only next week?


Expect to see a significant change in the tone of the pundits as these numbers begin to be digested. A 5% national increase in Democrats would be ground shaking. That is not what is happening with these numbers we are looking at 20-30 % in contested state after contested state. If Democrats can sustain a GOTV that will increase Democrat votes in swing states by +15%, for example, then words like Tsunami, Earthquake, will not hold what is about to happen. These numbers are so huge that November 4th has taken on a completely new and expanded meaning - this may not be an election but the most significant political restructuring since 1932. This will be the legacy of George Bush.

[phrigndumass]

39. * * * Excellent reply * * *

These increases are definitely mind-boggling ... Hurricane Barack is about to hit the country on November 4.

The reason for this OP (besides sharing the good news) is to ask for others' help in gathering this data. I'll go back to each state's SOS/Elections website in about a week to look for revised figures.

I imagine the turnout among newly registered voters will be about the same as other voters ... approximately 70%

New registered voters in Obama's Seventeen swing states has increased by about 22% since 2004:





.

[grantcart]

38. kicking

[Kukesa]

40. And another KICK! n/t

[grantcart]

41. from the SOS in CA increase of 500,000 voters + 3.5 %

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/60day_presgen_08/hist_reg_stats.pdf

[4lbs]

45. According to that CA SOS link, I found something interesting.

The number of registered Republicans in 2008 has decreased by about 2.7% from 2004. The number of "Decline to State" has increased by about 2.4%.

However, the number of registered Democrats has increased by 0.5%

Looks to me like hundreds of thousands of Republicans changed their affiliation in the last 4 years. :D

[Blue_In_AK]

42. Oh, my gosh, look at Alaska.

We've got the second highest increase of anywhere in the country! I just know a lot of those are Obama supporters because our caucus was so huge.

[mb7588a]

43. States with same day registration:

Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Wyoming

[iamthebandfanman]

44. shewie we need to go get people in Wyoming

with that big of a drop, surely theres some people who could be registered by a fine democrat ;)

[Kaleko]

46. Once again, thanks phrig! So much work, but it's very much appreciated.

[Kaleko]

47. Another kick