From user research to action
Designing voter list maintenance communications that people can recognize, understand, and act on
The MIT Election Data and Science Lab helps highlight new research and interesting ideas in election science, including through research grants under our ongoing Practice-Oriented Research program.
Our post today comes from Misty Crooks, Randy Hazdor, Hannah Pick, Whitney Quesenbery, and Fernando Sánchez from the Center for Civic Design, based on their team's ongoing research funded by this program. The information and opinions expressed in this column represent their own research, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the MIT Election Lab or MIT.
Keeping voter registration lists current and accurate is essential work for election offices. But list maintenance also depends on a voter’s ability to navigate a process with many potential points of failure. They may not receive the notice. If they do, they must decide whether it is legitimate, understand what it asks them to do, and determine how to respond.
The Center for Civic Design is working with the MIT Election Science Lab to develop a toolkit of practical, research-informed notice templates and guidance for voter list maintenance.
Our core question is simple: How can election offices communicate with voters about their registration in ways that are clear, trustworthy, actionable, and feasible to produce and use?
A few stories from our user research
We wanted to understand the environment into which these notices are sent. We recruited participants for differences in mail habits, technology use, voting behavior, privacy concerns, and demographic characteristics.
The screener gave us a useful starting point, but answers like “once per day or more” or “once per month or less” did not capture the circumstances behind them: where someone lives, who checks the mail, how often they move between households, what barriers they face, or what workarounds they use.
Here are two important findings and the stories behind them.
People don’t always check their mail consistently
One retiree marked in the screener that he checks his mail “once per day or more.” But he and his wife split their time between homes. In Illinois, their mailbox is on the porch, so they check it several times a day. In Florida, they travel about half a mile by golf cart to their complex post office and check it only once or twice a week.
When important mail wasn’t forwarded quickly to Florida, his wife signed them up for USPS Informed Delivery, which they use to preview their mail daily.
The session also challenged assumptions about technology use. Although the participant described himself as a gullible “boomer” and said he would be more likely to respond by mail, he also said he would use a QR code and ChatGPT to help verify whether a notice was legitimate.
Mail habits may be more complicated than they seem
Participants’ stories directly shaped how we think about cues on the envelope, timing, and the balance between paper and digital response paths as we carry out this work. A recent graduate who marked that she checked her mail “once a month or less” in our screener hasn’t updated her address since she last moved. She used to live with her ex‑partner in New York, then moved in with a friend. When her friend moved to another state, she began checking her current mailbox and opening important mail addressed to her friend so that she can send her images of the mail via text message.
She picks up her own mail only about once a month when she goes to her ex‑partner’s house to get their shared dog’s prescription. Mail feels overwhelming, and she doesn’t see herself as someone who knows how to “do mail”, including updating her address, managing forwarding, and sending mail). So instead of updating, she (and her friend and ex) maintain this complicated system.
While she prefers to respond to official communications online or in person, if a QR code was on the back of an envelope, she would scan it immediately without reading anything else and would miss important information on the back of an envelope about how to return the mail if it wasn’t addressed to her or someone else she knew.
What we’ve done so far
Our research and design process combined landscape research, collaboration with election officials, and iterative testing with voters.
Our research and design process combined landscape research, collaboration with election officials, and iterative testing with voters.
We chose qualitative user research because it can bring important failure points to the surface before designs are piloted or finalized at a larger scale.
Small-sample qualitative research isn’t meant to estimate statewide response rates or prove that a notice will improve outcomes across an electorate. Those questions require quantitative evaluation.
Instead, qualitative user research answers questions like:
- Do voters know who sent this notice and why they received it?
- How do they feel about it? Does anything create fear, confusion, or distrust?
- Do they understand the calls to action and complete them easily?
- Do they understand key terms (like “inactive”) in practical terms, and how much do they need to know to make them most likely to respond?
Our participant stories and iterative testing show why the details of the surrounding system matter. Mail routines, household arrangements, familiarity with technology, language, trust, and the effort required to respond all shape whether a voter can recognize, understand, and act on a list maintenance notice, and how we think about design at the Center for Civic Design.
What we learned: a few highlights
From workshop insights to draft designs for testing with voters
We identified specific moments in the list-maintenance process when clearer communication could most likely improve understanding and response. These triggers included:
- Address updates
- Requests for missing information, and
- Follow-up after returned mail, nonresponse, or a change to inactive status.
We brought together election officials and senior advisors for a hands-on workshop to identify evidence-based best practices and brainstorm design elements to test with voters. Participants “built” ideal notices by choosing formats, content, and tone for different scenarios and audiences.
A person creating a paper prototype.
A person creating a paper prototype.
Workshop insights framed the design principles, audiences, and hypotheses for our first round of testing. We learned that people likely to miss notices may rarely check or be unfamiliar with mail, live in multiple locations throughout the year, be unhoused, or be infrequent or new voters.
Workshop prototype materials with handwritten notes and feedback.
Workshop prototype materials with handwritten notes and feedback.
The first round of testing showed what worked and what didn’t.
Convenience and familiarity shape how voters respond to mail
Physical mail is not equally convenient for everyone, which affects how people check and respond to it.
For some people, retrieving mail is part of an existing routine, such as passing by their mailbox on a daily walk or drive. For others, it requires a separate trip, whether walking 15-20 minutes, taking a golf‑cart ride, or visiting a mailbox cluster in their complex. That extra effort can make it easy to postpone responding.
Some participants didn’t know how to return mail addressed to someone else or even respond to mail in general. They may throw these items away because they assume they would have to travel to the post office (often out of the way) to return them or because their landlord told them to do so. One participant did not know how to respond to mail unless there was a prepaid return envelope and needed explicit instructions. Others did not keep stamps on hand.
These distinctions are more useful than broad assumptions based on where or how someone lives. The key factors are whether mail is already on someone’s path (close by or embedded into an existing routine) or whether it requires an extra errand or trip and how familiar they are with how to return and respond to mail.
Don’t assume that returning a paper form is equally easy for everyone. A usable system should support a credible paper option while also offering a clear, accessible, official digital path for people who prefer to act online.
Round 1 and Round 2 postcard designs show how voter feedback shaped revisions to the notice, including (A) clearer instructions for mail intended for someone else and (B) a more prominent online response option.
Round 1 and Round 2 postcard designs show how voter feedback shaped revisions to the notice, including (A) clearer instructions for mail intended for someone else and (B) a more prominent online response option.
Voters need a sense of control and just enough personalized information to act
Voters are more likely to engage with a notice when it explains why they received it, how it affects them, and what they can do next. They may be comfortable updating or verifying information they previously provided, but wary when a notice implies an outside source learned something about them or that their status is changing based on rules they don’t know or agree with.
Familiarity can reinforce that sense of control. Participants also leaned on precedent: they trusted notices that looked and sounded consistent with what they’re used to receiving from their election office (for example, a standard letter vs. postcard format, familiar logos, and a straightforward, slightly firm tone). When the format, tone, or branding felt inconsistent with past mail, they were more likely to question whether the notice was legitimate.
Too much process detail up front can backfire. For example, warning voters they will no longer be able to receive important information and official communications, including a ballot, if they do not respond, may be more effective than explaining the full backend process of being moved to inactive status.
We learned these insights from exploring voter reactions to a variety of mock ups and combining the most successful elements into our next round of designs. For example we took the check boxes and flow of one mock up, the hierarchy and visual treatment of another and the form from a third.
What worked and didn’t – 3 examples
Some phrases created fear or confusion, while others made the call to action, urgency, or instructions harder to understand.
In Round 1 we created artifacts and snippets based on best practices, input from elections officials/advisors, and workshop learnings. We used these materials to test hypotheses by observing voter interpretations and exploring their reactions.
In Round 1 we created artifacts and snippets based on best practices, input from elections officials/advisors, and workshop learnings. We used these materials to test hypotheses by observing voter interpretations and exploring their reactions.
We refined our designs and tested them again. We also designed mockups of bilingual layouts, a landing page for an online form, and concepts for outreach to let voters know to keep an eye out for these notices. Our aim was to test the entire process, not just the mailer itself.
Across the notices we tested, a few design and language choices helped participants understand what to do:
- Participants preferred a straightforward, slightly firm tone. Clear, concise reason statements were easier to scan.
- Bold text worked better than all caps to signal urgency; all caps felt like yelling.
- Grey boxes behind steps improved visual hierarchy and made the structure easier to follow.
Designing notices around what voters need to know
The most effective notices lead with concise, plain-language information:
- A. Why did I receive the notice?
- B. How does it affect me? What will I gain or avoid by responding?
- C. A clear call to action.
More detailed information such as process explanations, data-source information where required, and FAQs, should go in a clearly labeled secondary section, help channel, or official landing page.
The revised notice leads with:
A) Why it was sent to the voter
B) What they might gain or avoid by responding
C) A clear call to action
Additional process information appears later in the notice or through an official help channel.
The revised notice leads with:
A) Why it was sent to the voter
B) What they might gain or avoid by responding
C) A clear call to action
Additional process information appears later in the notice or through an official help channel.
This approach of progressive disclosure and a clear call to action helps distinguish a legitimate voter‑registration interaction from a message that feels intrusive, punitive, or suspicious.
What’s next?
In the spirit of iteration, we are now completing the final round of research with voters. This includes testing updated versions of the notice, digital response options, bilingual layouts, and outreach concepts to let voters know to keep an eye out for these notices.
Then, we’ll move on to creating a toolkit of modular templates and guidance that election offices can adapt to their local rules, timelines, systems, and needs.
