Virginia Might Make Election Day a Paid Holiday. Is That Really a Good Idea?

Yomiuri Shimbun/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Earlier this month, Virginia lawmakers voted to eliminate Lee–Jackson Day—a holiday honoring Confederate generals—and replace it with a state holiday on Election Day. The legislation, which Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam has endorsed, is being billed as a win-win, striking down a relic of the state’s racist past while simultaneously promoting an effort to boost voter turnout.

Swapping out an existing paid holiday for Election Day seems to be an increasingly popular idea elsewhere in the country, too. Election Day is already a holiday in several states, and six of the Democratic presidential candidates have said that they support making it a national holiday. Last year, the city of Sandusky, Ohio, opted for an Election Day holiday in lieu of Columbus Day, which many associate with oppression of indigenous peoples. Wilfred Codrington of the Brennan Center for Justice has suggested moving the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday to Election Day to honor the civil rights leader’s dedication to democracy. This week, several public figures suggested replacing Presidents Day with an Election Day holiday. 

But would an Election Day holiday actually help get voters to the polls? The answer is far from clear.

Since 1845, Election Day has taken place on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, because that was the most convenient time for rural farmers to travel to cities after completing their fall harvests. Election Day now falls in the middle of the traditional workweek, and advocates for a paid holiday say that it would give working people more flexibility to cast their ballots. They also suggest that it would shorten lines at polling places by reducing the number of people voting at the peak hours before and after the workday. And, while paid federal holidays legally apply only to government employees and public institutions, private employers tend to follow suit.

Still, there’s little indication that such a holiday would really boost voter turnout. An Elections Canada study of 61 democratic countries, for example, did not find any evidence of higher voter turnout in countries where election day was a holiday. And Joshua Douglas, a professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law and author of Vote for Us: How to Take Back Our Elections and Change the Future of Voting, warns that an Election Day holiday could have unintended consequences for low-income workers who might miss a day’s wages, or for parents whose daycares might close. The holiday would also fail to benefit emergency workers, hospital workers, and other employees who most likely would not get the day off, he said.

“The concern about Election Day as a holiday is it’s not clear that it will actually improve turnout, as opposed to just make it easier for people who are already going to vote anyway,” Douglas said. A better solution, according to Douglas, would be to enact universal vote-by-mail, which would allow people to fill out a ballot and return it at their convenience. This would solve the problem of long lines at polling places without forcing voters to rearrange their schedules. Colorado implemented that system in 2014, with promising results: A Washington Monthly study found that it increased overall voter turnout in that year by 3.3 percent. Similar systems are also used in Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii.

Luckily, the Election Day holiday isn’t the only reform aimed at making it easier for people in Virginia to vote. Lawmakers there recently approved no-excuse absentee voting, which Northam has supported. The state’s Senate has voted to repeal the state’s photo ID law, and lawmakers are considering bills that would enact automatic voter registration. “There are a series of things that, taken together, could rewrite the picture quite significantly,” Claire Gastañaga, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, said. “It’s a really exciting time here in Virginia when you think about it in terms of access to the ballot box and reversing a long history of mostly racially designed barriers to voting.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate