Voter Suppression Tactics Explained

Strict voter ID laws have been implemented in numerous states, creating significant barriers to voting for specific demographics:

Impact of ID Requirements

• 11% of U.S. citizens – approximately 21 million Americans – lack government-issued photo identification
• Obtaining ID can cost up to $175 in fees, travel expenses, and document costs
• Voters of color are 2-3 times more likely to lack required ID compared to white voters
• Rural residents face challenges due to DMV closures and limited hours

SAVE Act Provisions

The proposed SAVE Act would create new national requirements:

• Federal requirement for proof of citizenship to register to vote
• Elimination of same-day voter registration in states where currently permitted
• Requirement for REAL ID-compliant identification to vote in federal elections
• Criminalization of certain forms of voter assistance

Evidence of Impact

Research demonstrates the suppressive effect of strict ID laws:

• GAO study: States with strict ID laws saw turnout drops of 2-3 percentage points
• University of Wisconsin study: Up to 23% of Black voters and 17% of Latino voters were deterred from voting by ID requirements
• Brennan Center analysis: Documented cases of actual voter impersonation amount to 0.0001% of ballots cast

New Citizenship Documentation Requirements

• In-Person Presentation: Voters must physically present specific citizenship documentation
• Alternative Methods Eliminated: Previous verification options no longer accepted
• Cost Burden: Estimated $75-175 per affected voter to obtain required documents
• Disproportionate Impact: Particularly affects naturalized citizens and rural communities

Gerrymandering involves manipulating electoral district boundaries to favor one political party or demographic group over others.

Tactics Used in Redistricting

• Cracking: Spreading opposition voters across multiple districts to dilute their voting power
• Packing: Concentrating opposition voters into as few districts as possible
• Stacking: Combining different communities to disadvantage minority voters
• Algorithmic mapping: Using sophisticated software to maximize partisan advantage

Recent State Cases

Several states have faced legal challenges over extreme gerrymandering:

• North Carolina: Supreme Court cases in 2019, 2022, and 2023 over racial and partisan gerrymandering
• Ohio: State supreme court rejected maps four times before implementation
• Georgia: Federal court found maps diluted Black voting power in violation of Voting Rights Act
• Alabama: Ordered to redraw maps to create a second majority-Black district

Mathematical Analysis

Objective measurements confirm the severity of gerrymandering:

• Efficiency Gap: Shows how many votes are "wasted" by gerrymandering
• Mean-Median Difference: Measures skew in how votes translate to seats
• Computer simulations: Show that many current maps are more biased than 99.9% of randomly generated alternatives

Aggressive and often error-prone purges of voter rolls have removed eligible voters before elections.

Scale of Purges

• More than 17 million voters purged nationwide between 2016 and 2018
• Purge rates increased by 33% after the Supreme Court weakened the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder
• States previously covered by VRA preclearance have higher purge rates than others

Flawed Methodologies

Several methods used for purges have proven highly inaccurate:

• Interstate Crosscheck: Flagged 200 legitimate voters for every case of potential fraud
• "Use it or lose it" laws: Remove voters for not participating in recent elections
• Exact-match verification: Flags voters for minor discrepancies like missing hyphens or typos
• Postal notification systems: Disproportionately impact people who move frequently or lack stable housing

Disproportionate Impact

Studies consistently show purges affect certain communities more than others:

• Black voters are 1.9 times more likely to be purged in states previously covered by VRA preclearance
• Latino voters were purged at 1.8 times the rate of white voters in states using Crosscheck
• Low-income voters face higher risk due to residential mobility and mail delivery issues

Despite the widespread adoption and security of mail-in voting during the COVID-19 pandemic, recent legislation has created new obstacles to absentee and mail-in voting.

Recent Restrictions

• 19 states passed laws restricting mail voting access since 2020
• Requirements for notarization or witness signatures added in multiple states
• Shortened application and return windows for mail ballots
• Limitations on ballot drop boxes and secure return locations
• Signature matching requirements with subjective verification standards

Military and Overseas Voting

Recent legal challenges threaten voting access for military personnel:

• Lawsuits claiming UOCAVA ballots (Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act) lack proper security
• Challenges to ballots from military families stationed overseas
• Requirements for in-person witness verification that are impossible to meet for deployed personnel

Mail Ballot Rejections

Rejection rates for mail ballots reveal disparities:

• First-time mail voters have rejection rates 3 times higher than experienced mail voters
• Ballots from Black, Latino, and young voters rejected at 2-3 times the rate of other demographics
• Rejection rates higher in counties with larger minority populations
• Inconsistent notification and cure processes for rejected ballots

New laws have enabled partisan interference in previously nonpartisan election administration:

Local Election Official Targeting

• 1 in 6 local election officials have experienced threats or harassment
• Over 30% of election officials know colleagues who left their jobs due to safety concerns, threats, or harassment
• Laws passed in multiple states allowing for criminal penalties against election officials for procedural decisions
• Removal of local election officials' authority over key decisions like polling place locations and hours

State Legislature Takeover Provisions

• New laws enabling legislative bodies to override election results or replace election officials
• Shifting certification authority from bipartisan boards to partisan officials
• Creating mechanisms to challenge election outcomes with minimal evidence requirements

Poll Observer Intimidation

• Expanded powers for partisan poll watchers to monitor voters and challenge eligibility
• Removal of previous restrictions on poll watcher movement and proximity to voters
• Decreased oversight of poll watcher conduct and reduced penalties for intimidation

Since the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision weakened the Voting Rights Act, polling place closures have accelerated in many states:

Disproportionate Closures

• 1,688 polling places closed in states previously requiring preclearance under the VRA
• Counties with larger minority populations experienced more closures per capita
• Rural communities have seen 21% reductions in polling locations since 2013

Waiting Time Disparities

Research consistently shows disparities in wait times to vote:

• Voters in predominantly Black neighborhoods wait 29% longer than those in white neighborhoods
• Latino voters experience wait times 46% longer than white voters on average
• Resource allocation results in fewer voting machines and poll workers per voter in minority communities

Early Voting Restrictions

• Elimination of Sunday early voting disproportionately impacts "Souls to the Polls" efforts in Black churches
• Reduction of early voting days and hours in areas with higher minority populations
• Requiring uniform hours statewide despite different needs in rural vs. urban areas

Key Supreme Court decisions have fundamentally altered the legal landscape for voting rights:

Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

This watershed case invalidated the preclearance formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act:

• Eliminated requirement for states with history of discrimination to receive federal approval before changing voting laws
• Resulted in immediate wave of restrictive voting laws in previously covered jurisdictions
• Chief Justice Roberts claimed "things have changed dramatically" in the South, no longer requiring special oversight

Brnovich v. DNC (2021)

Made it harder to challenge discriminatory voting laws by:

• Establishing new limiting guidelines for Section 2 Voting Rights Act claims
• Creating five new "guideposts" that favor states over voters in discrimination cases
• Setting high bar for proving disparate impact on minority voters

Recent Lower Court Rulings

• Eighth Circuit upheld witness requirements despite COVID-19 risks
• Fifth Circuit allowed Texas to limit drop boxes to one per county regardless of population
• Multiple courts have upheld restrictive ID laws while acknowledging their disparate impact

Congressional responses to voting restrictions have stalled despite multiple attempts:

Freedom to Vote Act

Key provisions that would address voter suppression:

• Nationwide minimum standards for early voting and mail-in ballots
• Same-day and automatic voter registration
• Restoration of voting rights for formerly incarcerated citizens
• Ban on partisan gerrymandering

John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act

Would restore and strengthen the Voting Rights Act by:

• Creating new formula for determining which jurisdictions need preclearance
• Expanding authority to request federal observers in potentially discriminatory jurisdictions
• Improving voting rights litigation procedures

Legislative Status

• Both bills passed House but failed in Senate due to filibuster
• No federal voting rights legislation has passed since 2002 Help America Vote Act
• State-level voting restrictions continue to advance without federal response

As federal voting protections face challenges, states are taking divergent approaches:

State VRA Initiatives

• Several states developing their own Voting Rights Acts
• Enhanced protections against discriminatory voting changes
• State-level preclearance requirements being considered

Restrictive Trends

• Increased ID requirements in multiple states
• New limitations on mail voting access
• Reduced early voting periods

Supreme Court Blocks Mass Deportation Attempt

• Key Ruling: Court blocks use of 1798 Alien Enemies Act for Venezuelan deportations
• Constitutional Basis: Due process rights violations cited in majority opinion
• Impact: Case remanded to lower court, affecting similar pending deportation cases
• Date: May 16, 2025

Birthright Citizenship Order Blocked

• Ruling: Seattle federal judge blocks executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship
• Legal Basis: Direct violation of 14th Amendment
• Judge: John Coughenour issues temporary restraining order
• Status: Order suspended pending further review