Executive summary

This policy brief takes a deep dive into the issue of voter suppression and disenfranchisement. There is a long history of voter disenfranchisement in the United States, and more recent developments have only exacerbated the issue. Although voter participation has increased in recent years, it lacks consistency, with only 37% of eligible voters using their voices in the 2018, 2020, and 2022 elections. Moreover, Black, Hispanic, and Asian Americans were underrepresented in the three elections.

Overview

Voting rights are an issue as old as the United States itself. At its founding, only white men were able to vote. After the ratification of the 15th amendment in 1870, voting rights were expanded, but the handling of elections was also left up to the states. States began enacting voting laws containing discriminatory sections like “grandfather clauses,” which stated that only someone whose grandfather would have been eligible to vote would be able to register. Additional measures taken included implementation of poll taxes, literacy or civics tests, and English-language requirements. Such laws directly discriminated against immigrants, people from low-income backgrounds, and Black Americans.

As a result of the Civil Rights Movement, laws were enacted to protect voting rights and expand them for minorities. A pivotal moment in history was the implementation of the Voting Rights Act. In addition to granting the right to vote to Black women, Native Americans, and immigrants, it mandated that elections in regions with histories of discrimination against voters be overseen on a federal level and disallowed the most common tactics used in voter suppression.

In 2013, however, the Supreme Court delivered a ruling that gutted the keystone of the Voting Rights Act. In Shelby County v. Holder, the provision requiring that counties with a history of discrimination against voters get changes to electoral processes checked with the federal government before they were allowed to go into effect was ruled unconstitutional.

In recent years, states have passed a number of laws making the voting process more difficult. Certain states, including Alabama and Mississippi, passed laws requiring photo ID in order to vote. In states with strict voter ID laws, those who vote without IDs are granted only a provisional ballot and must take further steps after election day in order to ensure that their vote is counted. More than 1,688 polling places closed between the years of 2012 and 2018.

Pointed Summary

• SCOTUS’ decision in Shelby County v. Holder opened the door for states to enact voting changes that previously would have been shut down on the federal level.
• In recent years, states have enacted strict voter ID laws, voter roll purges, increased requirements to be eligible to register to vote, cut voting times, and more.
• Many of these laws disenfranchise minority, immigrant, and low-income voters, thus decreasing voter turnout from said communities and causing them to often be underrepresented in elections.

Relevance

Voter ID laws, though created with the intention of reducing voter fraud, reduce the number of eligible voters, as an estimated 11% of eligible voters do not have a valid form of photo ID. In a more alarming statistic, the US Government Accountability Office found that almost 20% of Black people who were registered voters did not have a valid ID for voting purposes. While voter ID laws may not significantly impact white voters, they certainly have a more consequential influence on voters of color.

Moreover, voter roll purges, in which voters are removed from registration lists automatically (and often without notification) due to inactivity, have become more prevalent in recent years. Currently, 20 states have voter purging mandates in place. According to the American Bar Association, there is a correlation between lower socioeconomic status and irregular voter participation. In certain areas, a correlation also exists between racial minorities and failure to vote regularly. This leads to underrepresentation of these groups in elections and skews electoral results.

In the wake of Shelby County v. Holder, closure of polling places has been widespread across the United States. In particular, Republican-leaning states have closed the most sites. Texas, which has a population that is 39% Latino and 12% Black, has closed a staggering 750 polling places since 2013. Georgia, a state with a 30% Black population, has closed 214 polling places in that same period of time. A report from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights found that as of 2019, seven counties in Georgia have only one polling place. Closure of polling locations causes longer wait times as more people are assigned to one location. This makes voting less accessible, and since polling place closures disproportionately occur in communities with higher minority populations, it unfairly targets people of color.

Current Stances

Proponents of voter ID laws argue that election fraud is an increasing issue within the United States, and requiring identification in order to vote is a necessary action that must be taken in order to prevent this. As Texas governor Greg Abbott (R) put it, "I know for a fact that voter fraud is real, that it must be stopped, and that voter [ID] is one way to prevent cheating at the ballot box and ensure integrity in the electoral system.” Voter fraud encompasses a variety of different actions, including impersonation fraud, false registrations, and fraudulent use of absentee ballots. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank known for advocating for greater security in elections, argues that although voter fraud is an uncommon issue, even very minor amounts of fraud can decide close elections. 

As for closure of polling places, some argue that this correlates with the growing availability and use of absentee ballots. In Kentucky’s 2020 primary election, 75% of votes were cast via mail-in ballots. Thus, some consider it a logical argument that as in-person voting becomes less common in certain areas, polling locations are consolidated.

However, voting rights activists argue that these post-Shelby changes to voting are blatant attacks against marginalized communities, and that they are largely perpetrated by the GOP. Several activist groups, including the League of Women Voters, liken new voter laws to those in place in the Jim Crow era, such as poll taxes and literacy tests. A report published by the American Civil Liberties Union draws attention to several particularly incriminating state policies, including a Georgia law (SB 202) making it illegal to provide food or water to people waiting in line at polls to vote.‍

Tried Policy

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been the keystone of voter protection for 59 years. After only a decade of this law’s enactment, the inequality between percentage of white and Black people who were registered to vote dropped from 30% to 8%. The two most commonly referenced components of this law are sections 2 and 5. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act grants individuals and organizations the right to sue to undo unfair laws surrounding elections. Section 5 infamously mandates regions with histories of discriminatory practices regarding elections to get preclearance from a court before putting new voting rules in place. This section was key in preventing the widespread implementation of discriminatory voting laws up until 2013, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this portion of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. The Voting Rights Act is still in place today, but it stands without the most important formula to protect voters.

Policy Problem

A. Stakeholders

Americans of color are significant stakeholders in this nationwide issue. A report published by the Brennan Center found a widening gap in racial turnout throughout the last decade. According to the US Census Bureau, registration of voting-age Black citizens has decreased by 6% since 2008. This timing coincides with the drastic voting laws enacted in the wake of the Shelby decision. Moreover, felony disenfranchisement laws disproportionately target Americans of color, particularly Black people. Currently, 26 states have laws mandating some extent of disenfranchisement of former inmates after their release from prison. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Black people make up 38.8% of inmates. This is despite the fact that only about 14.4% of America’s population self-identifies as Black. Without delving into the nuances of racism in the criminal justice system, these statistics are important to note.

A 2018 study also found racialized differences in closure of polling places. In counties made up of mostly minorities, an average of seven polling places closed. In predominantly white counties, the average number of polling places lost was two.

Lower-income individuals can also be identified as stakeholders in the issue of voter suppression. With lower numbers of polling places meaning longer wait times at remaining locations and, for many, strenuous transportation times and costs, a financial strain is placed on many. Lower-income communities tend to have lower voter turnout compared to higher-income communities. According to US Census Bureau data, 33% of voters with household incomes under $20,000 a year voted, compared to 67% of voters with household incomes over $100,000. This lower voter turnout leads to underrepresentation of the needs of low-income communities and individuals in elections.

‍

B. Risks of Indifference

Remaining ignorant to the issue of voter suppression sets a dangerous precedent for future elections. To what extent can voter suppression be taken and still considered acceptable? In the past several years, 48 states have introduced more than 400 anti-voter bills. In order for Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to be effective, individuals must be aware of the political climate around them and identify the laws that unfairly target voters. According to Pew Research, 30% of eligible voters didn’t vote in the 2018, 2020, or 2022 elections. In order to increase civic participation and thus the efficacy of our democracy, voter suppression must be limited.

Policy Options

It is imperative that legislation be enacted to protect voters and promote equity for all in the voting process. Certain bills have already been proposed in Congress that would do just this. The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, introduced in 2021, would protect voters against attempts to prevent voting and registration through misinformation. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which passed the House in 2021, would essentially reinstate a new and improved version of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This bill would reinstate preclearance for state voting practice changes in response to these states meeting certain criteria of violating voting rights. These are only two such examples of existing bills to protect voters, but many more have been introduced in both state and federal legislatures, and are equally vital.

In addition to the passing of these existing bills, others should be passed ensuring some of the following provisions:

1. Polling place closures must be announced and widely advertised within their respective jurisdictions in a timely manner.
2. A vote-by-mail option must be available and accessible to all voters, and jurisdictions must have multiple available drop-off locations for mail-in ballots.
3. Voter roll purges must be limited and preclearance from a federal court must be sought before such a purge is enacted.
4. Early voting should be expanded in states in order to reduce wait times on election day.

Conclusions and Recommendations

In closing, voter suppression’s increase in recent years is a deeply partisan issue and a cause for great concern. The aforementioned bills introduced in the House of Representatives are fine solutions to the problem, but in order to enact lasting change, more action needs to be taken. Legislation must be passed on both the state and federal levels protecting voting rights and ensuring equity in the electoral process for all groups.

‍

Acknowledgment

The Institute for Youth in Policy wishes to acknowledge Paul Kramer, Carlos Bindert, Gwen Singer, and other contributors for developing and maintaining the Programming Department within the Institute.

References 

1. “Block the Vote: How Politicians Are Trying to Block Voters from the Ballot Box.” American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union, 17 Aug. 2021, www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020. 
2. “Democracy Diverted: Polling Place Closures and the Right to Vote.” The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 10 Sept. 2019, civilrights.org/resource/democracy-diverted-polling-place-closures-and-the-right-to-vote/.
3. Federal Bureau of Prisons. “BOP Statistics: Inmate Race.” Bop.gov, 11 Nov. 2023, www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp.
4. “H.R.4 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021.” Www.congress.gov, 14 Sept. 2021, www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4. 
5. Hajnal, Zoltan, et al. “Voter Identification Laws and the Suppression of Minority Votes.” The Journal of Politics, vol. 79, no. 2, Apr. 2017, pp. 363–79, https://doi.org/10.1086/688343. 
6. Hartig, Hannah, et al. “Voter Turnout, 2018-2022.” Pew Research Center, 12 July 2023, www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/07/12/voter-turnout-2018-2022/. 
7. Horine, Brady. “What’s so Bad about Voter ID Laws? | League of Women Voters.” Www.lwv.org, League of Women Voters, 23 May 2023, www.lwv.org/blog/whats-so-bad-about-voter-id-laws.
8. Levine, Sam, and Ankita Rao. “In 2013 the Supreme Court Gutted Voting Rights – How Has It Changed the US?” The Guardian, 25 June 2020, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/25/shelby-county-anniversary-voting-rights-act-consequences. 
9. Morris, Kevin, and Coryn Grange. “Growing Racial Disparities in Voter Turnout, 2008–2022 | Brennan Center for Justice.” Www.brennancenter.org, 18 Jan. 2024, www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/growing-racial-disparities-voter-turnout-2008-2022. 
10. National Archives. “Voting Rights Act (1965).” National Archives, 6 Oct. 2021, www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/voting-rights-act. 
11. National Conference of State Legislatures. “Voter ID Laws.” Www.ncsl.org, 25 Jan. 2023, www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.
12. National Low Income Housing Coalition. “A History of Voter Suppression.” National Low Income Housing Coalition, 23 Sept. 2020, nlihc.org/resource/history-voter-suppression. 
13. “New Census Data Reveal Voter Turnout Disparities in 2022 Midterm Elections | National Low Income Housing Coalition.” Nlihc.org, 6 Nov. 2023, nlihc.org/resource/new-census-data-reveal-voter-turnout-disparities-2022-midterm-elections. 
14. Office, U. S. Government Accountability. “Elections: Issues Related to State Voter Identification Laws [Reissued on February 27, 2015].” Www.gao.gov, no. GAO-14-634, Feb. 2015, www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-634. 
15. Polling Place Consolidation: Negative Impacts on Turnout and Equity. July 2020, votingrightslab.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Polling-Place-Consolidation-Negative-Impacts-on-Turnout-and-Equity.pdf. 
16. Smith, Paul. “‘Use It or Lose It’: The Problem of Purges from the Registration Rolls of Voters Who Don’t Vote Regularly.” Www.americanbar.org, 9 Feb. 2020, www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/voting-rights/-use-it-or-lose-it---the-problem-of-purges-from-the-registration0/. 
17. The Heritage Foundation. “Voter Fraud.” The Heritage Foundation, 2019, www.heritage.org/election-integrity/heritage-explains/voter-fraud. 
18. “The Shelby County Decision.” Www.justice.gov, 6 Aug. 2015, www.justice.gov/crt/shelby-county-decision. 
19. “Voter ID.” Brennan Center for Justice, 18 July 2012, www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/vote-suppression/voter-id?key=51&subkey=50867. 

‍