Legal Commentary

Much was made during the presidential election about the potential of a "Bradley effect" in which it was predicted that Barack Obama might suffer anywhere from 3-6 point penalty on election day because of his race. It's questionable whether such an effect occurred in this race or, indeed, whether it actually ever existed at all. But while the Bradley effect got all the attention, Obama was facing another form of discrimination from voters as they pondered their ballots -- the alphabetical kind. In addition to his race, his non-traditional upbringing and his middle name, Obama also had to overcome the burden of having a surname that falls in the last half of the alphabet.

The importance here is, of course, with ballot position. In the states that decide ballot order alphabetically, McCain (who is no alphabetical star himself) managed to secure a higher ballot position than Obama. With some empirical studies suggesting that ballot order can translate into a several percentage point advantage for the higher-placed candidate, the issue of alphabetical discrimination threatened to have as much of an impact on this election as the infamous Bradley effect. As an alphabetically challenged individual myself, I'll admit to taking this all pretty seriously.

In all fairness, recent research by Daniel Ho of Stanford and Kosuke Imai of Princeton concluded that ballot order likely has "no detectable effects on major party candidates" (although it might "significantly affect" minor party candidates.) The big pay-off comes in the primaries where Ho and Imai found "being listed first significantly increases vote shares for all candidates." This means that Obama had to work extra hard to beat out alphabetical-showoff Hillary Clinton.

Some states have recognized the inherent unfairness of alphabetical order. The State of California, for example, has been at the forefront of the fight against alphabetical discrimination. California law requires that each letter of the alphabet be written on a separate piece of paper and put into a "capsule." The capsules are placed into a container which must be "shaken vigorously." Each capsule is then selected one at a time until an entirely new alphabetical order is created that determines ballot order. If more than one candidate's surname starts with the same letter, the order within that letter follows the same randomized alphabet. This ballot order is then rotated among the state's 80 assembly districts. I was living in California during the highly publicized 2003 gubernatorial recall and can attest that on my ballot all 135 candidates for governor appeared in what could only be described as an entirely chaotic order. The extra effort it took to find my candidate was a small price to pay, in my view, for avoiding alphabetical discrimination.

If more states follow suit, perhaps we'll someday live in a land where we can all overcome our alphabetical destiny. That's a change I can believe in.