Democratic systems are generally considered to function best when the electorate is a reflection of the citizenry. With that goal in mind, liberal policymakers often advocate electoral reforms that they expect will expand the electorate so that those on the periphery will be drawn in to participate in democratic governance. A recent award-winning article by Burden, et al. (2014) finds that the electoral reform of “early voting” (absentee and early in-person) fails to increase a state’s voter turnout. They find that early voting, when implemented alone and not accompanied by Election Day or Same Day registration, led to lower statewide voter turnout in the 2004 and 2008 General Elections. After replicating and extending their analysis, we reassess the issue of these seemingly unintended consequences bringing to bear new data and methods. Following Hur and Achen (2013), we reweight Current Population Survey (CPS) data on state-level voter turnout to account for nonresponse and vote overreport bias encountered in these survey data. We then offer an alternative theory grounded in the accessibility of convenience voting reforms. Drawing on data from the 2008 and 2012 CPS, our models provide corrected and more refined measures of convenience voting based on states’ predisposition to facilitate different modes of convenience voting for eligible voters, relying on the early in-person and absentee mail voting rules that states have implemented. We find that convenience voting reforms—particularly absentee mail ballots and early in-person voting on the weekends—do not exhibit the unintended consequence of depressing voter turnout.