Aspiring political candidates must interact with state election agencies, which administer state election laws and determine whose names will be printed on election ballots. These agencies differ significantly from state to state, particularly with regard to accessibility. In order to determine how accessible state election agencies are to political candidates, Ballotpedia conducted an analysis of agency websites in all 50 states, grading states according to three distinct criteria: ease of access, quality of information, and response speed. States could earn a maximum score of 50 points and were then ranked according to the number of points they earned. Ballotpedia conducted this analysis in 2014 and 2016; this page compares the findings for those years.

HIGHLIGHTS

According to Ballotpedia's analysis, Vermont's election agency was the nation's most accessible in both 2014 and 2016. The state earned 49 of 50 possible points in each year.

Washington's score improved more than that of any other state; Washington earned 24 more points in 2016 than in 2014, raising the state's ranking from 22 in 2014 to three in 2016.

By contrast, Pennsylvania's score dropped 19 points from 2014 to 2016, lowering the state's ranking from 11 in 2014 to 23 in 2016.

Scoring methodology

States were graded in three distinct categories:^[1]

Ease of access: Did election agencies present the information candidates needed in an easy-to-find and easy-to-understand manner? (24 points)
Qualify of information: Did agencies disclose precise filing fee and signature requirement figures, or did agencies require candidates to calculate these figures themselves? (18 points)
Response speed: Did agencies respond to email queries in a timely manner? (8 points)

The maximum score a state could receive was 50 points. For further details about methodology, consult the sections below.

Total scores

	Accessibility of state election agencies;
Reports
	2016 state election agency accessibility report
	2014 state election agency accessibility report
See also
	Ballot access for major and minor party candidates; State election agencies

Total scores and rankings

In general, accessibility scores improved substantially between 2014 and 2016. In 2014, 25 states earned scores of 34 or higher; this number increased to 37 in 2016. Conversely, three states earned scores of 16 or lower in 2014; this number dropped to two in 2016. All told, scores for 34 states improved between 2014 and 2016. In 15 states, scores dropped. In one, the score held steady. See the table below for further details.

Total scores and rankings, 2014 and 2016
State	2014		2016		Difference
State	Total score	Ranking	Total score	Ranking	Total score	Ranking
Alabama	12	26	20	22	8	4
Alaska	17	24	37	13	20	11
Arizona	37	12	39	11	2	1
Arkansas	29	18	34	15	5	3
California	30	17	36	14	6	3
Colorado	25	21	40	10	15	11
Connecticut	25	21	26	18	1	3
Delaware	28	19	20	22	-8	-3
Florida	34	14	45	5	11	9
Georgia	26	20	24	19	-2	1
Hawaii	45	4	48	2	3	2
Idaho	43	6	39	11	-4	-5
Illinois	41	8	39	11	-2	-3
Indiana	39	10	41	9	2	1
Iowa	39	10	44	6	5	4
Kansas	14	25	16	24	2	1
Kentucky	28	19	42	8	14	11
Louisiana	26	20	40	10	14	10
Maine	41	8	43	7	2	1
Maryland	25	21	23	20	-2	1
Massachusetts	29	18	45	5	16	13
Michigan	33	15	42	8	9	7
Minnesota	42	7	45	5	3	2
Mississippi	34	14	44	6	10	8
Missouri	40	9	30	16	-10	-7
Montana	44	5	45	5	1	0
Nebraska	30	17	27	17	-3	0
Nevada	46	3	44	6	-2	-3
New Hampshire	38	11	42	8	4	3
New Jersey	14	25	22	21	8	4
New Mexico	28	19	6	25	-22	-6
New York	41	8	36	14	-5	-6
North Carolina	22	23	42	8	20	15
North Dakota	26	20	34	15	8	5
Ohio	26	20	41	9	15	11
Oklahoma	31	16	42	8	11	8
Oregon	37	12	39	11	2	1
Pennsylvania	38	11	19	23	-19	-12
Rhode Island	47	2	46	4	-1	-2
South Carolina	36	13	26	18	-10	-5
South Dakota	30	17	44	6	14	11
Tennessee	44	5	45	5	1	0
Texas	42	7	40	10	-2	-3
Utah	39	10	44	6	5	4
Vermont	49	1	49	1	0	0
Virginia	31	16	20	22	-11	-6
Washington	23	22	47	3	24	19
West Virginia	29	18	38	12	9	6
Wisconsin	38	11	45	5	7	6
Wyoming	44	5	47	3	3	2

Ease of access

Methodology

In the "ease of access" portion of the analysis, mouse clicks were used to gauge accessibility. For example, if an individual could access a state's election calendar with a single click, the state would receive the full six points allotted for that item. If an individual had to click twice to access the calendar, the state would receive five points for that item, and so on. If a state did not publish a particular document, the state received zero points for that item. If a state included two items within a single document (e.g., an election calendar included within a candidate guide), the state was given the same score for each individual item. Four items were included in this portion of the analysis, resulting in a maximum score of 24 points: candidate guides, election calendars, campaign finance guides, and campaign finance calendars. See the rubric below for further details.

Ease of access rubric
1 click	6 points
2 clicks	5 points
3 clicks	4 points
4 clicks	3 points
5 clicks	2 points
6 clicks	1 point
Not available	0 points

Findings

Between 2014 and 2016, California's and Arizona's ease of access scores each improved by 10 points, more than any other state. By contrast, Pennsylvania's score dropped nine points during the same period, a larger drop than in any other state. See the table below for a comparison of the states' scores for this criterion in 2014 and 2016. For a complete breakdown of the scores, see the 2014 and 2016 reports.

Ease of access scores by state, 2014 and 2016
State	2014 score	2016 score	Difference
Alabama	12	14	2
Alaska	11	11	0
Arizona	11	21	10
Arkansas	17	22	5
California	8	18	10
Colorado	17	20	3
Connecticut	13	14	1
Delaware	14	14	0
Florida	16	19	3
Georgia	14	18	4
Hawaii	19	22	3
Idaho	17	21	4
Illinois	15	15	0
Indiana	21	21	0
Iowa	13	18	5
Kansas	14	16	2
Kentucky	10	16	6
Louisiana	8	14	6
Maine	15	17	2
Maryland	11	17	6
Massachusetts	17	21	4
Michigan	11	18	7
Minnesota	16	19	3
Mississippi	16	18	2
Missouri	20	18	-2
Montana	18	19	1
Nebraska	16	21	5
Nevada	20	18	-2
New Hampshire	12	16	4
New Jersey	14	14	0
New Mexico	10	6	-4
New York	15	18	3
North Carolina	20	22	2
North Dakota	18	14	-4
Ohio	10	17	7
Oklahoma	17	16	-1
Oregon	17	19	2
Pennsylvania	20	11	-9
Rhode Island	21	20	-1
South Carolina	22	20	-2
South Dakota	12	18	6
Tennessee	22	19	-3
Texas	16	20	4
Utah	19	18	-1
Vermont	23	23	0
Virginia	13	14	1
Washington	21	21	0
West Virginia	15	24	9
Wisconsin	12	19	7
Wyoming	18	23	5

Quality of information

Methodology

In this portion of the analysis, states were scored on the quality of the information presented. Two items were included: signature requirements and filing fees. In order to receive the full 18 points allotted in this portion of the analysis, a state needed to publish precise signature requirements and filing fees for all offices. If a state only provided formulas and required candidates to calculate requirements and fees themselves, the state received zero points. In states where filing fees were not applicable, the fees were excluded from the score. If a state published partial signature requirements or filing fees, it received partial credit. See the rubric below for further details.

Quality of information rubric
Both signature requirements and cost of filing fees included	18 points
Signature requirements included and cost of filing fees not applicable	18 points
Partial signature requirements and cost of filing fees included	12 points
Partial signature requirements and cost of filing fees not applicable	12 points
Only signature requirements included	6 point
Only cost of filing fees included	6 point
No signature requirements or cost of filing fees included	0 points

Findings

Between 2014 and 2016, Washington's quality of information score increased by 18 points, a greater improvement than that of any other state. Meanwhile, both New Mexico's and Pennsylvania's scores dropped by 18 points during that same period. See the table below for a comparison of the states' scores for this criterion in 2014 and 2016. For a complete breakdown of the scores, see the 2014 and 2016 reports.

Quality of information scores, 2014 and 2016
State	2014 score	2016 score	Difference
Alabama	0	6	6
Alaska	6	18	12
Arizona	18	18	0
Arkansas	12	12	0
California	18	18	0
Colorado	0	12	12
Connecticut	12	12	0
Delaware	6	6	0
Florida	18	18	0
Georgia	6	6	0
Hawaii	18	18	0
Idaho	18	18	0
Illinois	18	18	0
Indiana	18	12	-6
Iowa	18	18	0
Kansas	0	0	0
Kentucky	18	18	0
Louisiana	18	18	0
Maine	18	18	0
Maryland	6	6	0
Massachusetts	6	18	12
Michigan	18	18	0
Minnesota	18	18	0
Mississippi	18	18	0
Missouri	12	12	0
Montana	18	18	0
Nebraska	6	6	0
Nevada	18	18	0
New Hampshire	18	18	0
New Jersey	0	0	0
New Mexico	18	0	-18
New York	18	12	-6
North Carolina	0	12	12
North Dakota	0	12	12
Ohio	12	18	6
Oklahoma	6	18	12
Oregon	12	12	0
Pennsylvania	18	0	-18
Rhode Island	18	18	0
South Carolina	6	6	0
South Dakota	18	18	0
Tennessee	18	18	0
Texas	18	12	-6
Utah	12	18	6
Vermont	18	18	0
Virginia	18	6	-12
Washington	0	18	18
West Virginia	6	6	0
Wisconsin	18	18	0
Wyoming	18	18	0

Speed of access

Methodology

In this portion of the analysis, states were graded according to how quickly they responded to email inquiries. A state that responded within 24 hours received the full eight points allotted in this portion of the analysis. If a state failed to respond within 96 hours, it received zero points. See below for further details.

Response speed rubric
Replied within 24 hours	8 points
Replied within 48 hours	6 points
Replied within 72 hours	4 points
Replied within 96 hours	2 point
No reply (or replied after more than 96 hours)	0 points

Findings

Nine of the states that failed to respond within 96 hours in 2014 responded within 24 hours in 2016. However, another nine states that had responded within 96 hours in 2014 failed to do so in 2016. See the table below for a comparison of the states' scores for this criterion in 2014 and 2016. For a complete breakdown of the scores, see the 2014 and 2016 reports.

Response speed scores, 2014 and 2016
State	2014 score	2016 score	Difference
Alabama	0	0	0
Alaska	0	8	8
Arizona	8	0	-8
Arkansas	0	0	0
California	4	0	-4
Colorado	8	8	0
Connecticut	0	0	0
Delaware	8	0	-8
Florida	0	8	8
Georgia	6	0	-6
Hawaii	8	8	0
Idaho	8	0	-8
Illinois	8	6	-2
Indiana	0	8	8
Iowa	8	8	0
Kansas	0	0	0
Kentucky	0	8	8
Louisiana	0	8	8
Maine	8	8	0
Maryland	8	0	-8
Massachusetts	6	6	0
Michigan	4	6	2
Minnesota	8	8	0
Mississippi	0	8	8
Missouri	8	0	-8
Montana	8	8	0
Nebraska	8	0	-8
Nevada	8	8	0
New Hampshire	8	8	0
New Jersey	0	8	8
New Mexico	0	0	0
New York	8	6	-2
North Carolina	2	8	6
North Dakota	8	8	0
Ohio	4	6	2
Oklahoma	8	8	0
Oregon	8	8	0
Pennsylvania	0	8	8
Rhode Island	8	8	0
South Carolina	8	0	-8
South Dakota	0	8	8
Tennessee	4	8	4
Texas	8	8	0
Utah	8	8	0
Vermont	8	8	0
Virginia	0	0	0
Washington	2	8	6
West Virginia	8	8	0
Wisconsin	8	8	0
Wyoming	8	6	-2

Complete results

Complete results, 2016

See also: 2016 state election agency accessibility report

The spreadsheet below provides the complete 2016 results for each state. Use the tabs at the bottom of the spreadsheet to navigate to different portions of the analysis. For more information, contact us.

Complete results, 2014

See also: 2014 state election agency accessibility report

The spreadsheet below provides the complete 2014 results for each state. Use the tabs at the bottom of the spreadsheet to navigate to different portions of the analysis. For more information, contact us.

Footnotes

↑ In the original 2014 analysis, these three categories were weighted differently. In order to facilitate comparisons, the 2014 scores were reweighted to match the 2016 scores. To view the original 2014 analysis, click here.

[1] In the original 2014 analysis, these three categories were weighted differently. In order to facilitate comparisons, the 2014 scores were reweighted to match the 2016 scores. To view the original 2014 analysis, click here.

[1]

Accessibility of state election agencies

Contents

Scoring methodology

Total scores

Total scores and rankings

Ease of access

Ease of access

Methodology

Findings

Quality of information

Quality of information

Methodology

Findings

Speed of access

Speed of access

Methodology

Findings

Complete results

Complete results, 2016

Complete results, 2014

See also

Footnotes

Information about voting

2026 Elections

2025 Elections

Election analysis

Trending

Public Policy

Information for candidates

Get Engaged

Services

Additional analysis

SITE NAVIGATION