Voter discrimination and other manipulations of the electoral process are nearly as old as the republic itself, but such abuses were dealt a decisive blow by the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which barred jurisdictions with evidence of voting discrimination from changing their voting procedures without “pre-clearance” from Federal authorities.
And – not unlike Roe vs. Wade – the 1965 act was the law of the land for 50 years until 2013, when the Shelby County v Holder ruling released counties with histories of voter discrimination from Federal oversight.
Since then, states have been ramping up discriminatory voting practices. Many of these, taken individually, may appear to have limited impact, but applied in combination they have a game-changing effect on electoral outcomes.
A Brennan Center analysis of data released by the Federal Election Assistance Commission found that nearly 11 million voters were purged from rolls between 2016 and 2018, overwhelmingly led by counties with a history of voter discrimination.
The telltale signs of discriminatory efforts to disenfranchise are many:
Registration
The simple failure to process voter voter registrations received prior to deadlines renders them void. Many states also impose severe restrictions on – and its officers even harass – voter registration groups. Other states mandate prejudicial qualification requirements for Deputy Registrars.
Voting
Attempts to restrict voting are far more insidious, and fall into two categories:
The first is the creation of logistical obstructions such as reducing and/or eliminating early voting dates. The most blatant, though, is gerrymandered consolidation/positioning of polling places to relocate them away from public transportation stops, and to reduce or eliminate them on Native American lands and college campuses.
Other election boards will – in selected precincts – reduce both the numbers of polling place staff and the amount of training that staff receives. In those same selected precincts, they may also fail to assure adequate numbers of functioning voting machines, optical scanners, or electronic polling books, or alternatively to stock an insufficient number of paper ballots.
Another obstructive tactic is language discrimination both in the selection of polling place staff and wording of election documents. Other blatant discrimination against minorities can include failure to accommodate voters with disabilities including barring assistance by family members.
Shortened deadlines for absentee ballot returns combine with complicated absentee ballot requirements to further deny access for those with mobility issues or irreconcilable schedule conflicts.
The second is the creation of administrative obstructions, among which the most prominent is excessive purging of voter registration rolls.
However, even a duly registered voter can be denied the right to vote by stricter photo ID laws, combined with gerrymandered closings of the DMV offices which issue them. This ID challenge tactic may imnclude failure to accept student ID’s issued by state universities, and/or Native American tribal IDs. It also may include barring Native American voters living on reservations through “no P.O. Box” residential address requirements.
“Exact match” signature requirements are another ID challenge tactic to deny voters access to polls.
Practices less widely employed are:
- Requiring the payment of outstanding civil fines/fees as a voting pre-requisite.
- Failure to assist or accommodate voters displaced by natural disasters, and failure to inform formerly incarcerated persons of their voting rights.
The U.S. is unique among Western democracies placing the burden of voter registration upon the individual.
In Canada, a voter is automatically added to Federal election rolls at age 18, and remains registered even after a move. It is unsurprising that 93% of Canadians are registered to vote vs. only 68% of Americans.
These increasingly frequent abuses leave little question that after decades of progress toward universal enfranchisement, many states are rolling back voting rights in an echo of Jim Crow.
Leave a Reply